Salinas 155634 v. Thornell

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedDecember 6, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-02422
StatusUnknown

This text of Salinas 155634 v. Thornell (Salinas 155634 v. Thornell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Salinas 155634 v. Thornell, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Martin Salinas, No. CV-23-02422-PHX-JAT (ASB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Ryan F. Thornell, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pro se Plaintiff Martin Salinas, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 16 Complex-Yuma, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and 17 an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the 18 Application to Proceed and will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 19 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 20 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $38.66. The remainder 23 of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 24 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 26 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 2 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 3 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 5 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 7 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 8 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 9 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 10 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 11 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 12 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 13 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 14 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 15 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 16 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 17 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 18 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 19 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 20 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 21 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 22 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 23 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 24 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 25 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 26 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 27 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 . . . . 1 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 3 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 4 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 5 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants Arizona Department of 8 Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry (ADC) Director Ryan F. Thornell; Deputy Warden 9 A. Camacho; Disciplinary Officer/Captain R. McConan; and Disciplinary 10 Coordinator/Correctional Officer III E. Barragan. In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks 11 the dismissal of a disciplinary action. 12 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment regarding 13 disciplinary proceedings. He claims Defendant Barragan served him with a disciplinary 14 report that was incomplete because it did not include the date and specific location of the 15 alleged violation or a detailed description of the events, in violation of an ADC Department 16 Orders and procedures. Plaintiff asserts that when he informed Defendant Barragan of 17 these issues, Defendant Barragan took out his pen to write the date on the typed disciplinary 18 report, which violated an ADC Department Order and Plaintiff’s rights to due process and 19 a “fair hearing or defen[s]e.” 20 Plaintiff alleges Defendant McConan disregarded “the violation of the written 21 disciplinary report” and stated she could not dismiss the disciplinary charge. He claims 22 this violated his right to “a fair dismissal.” Plaintiff asserts Defendant Camacho was 23 advised of the “disciplinary violations” and, although she has the authority to correct staff 24 violations, violated Plaintiff’s “right to fairness of Department Orders and procedures,” 25 denied Plaintiff’s request for relief, and directed Plaintiff to use the appeals process. 26 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges he was subjected to retaliation, in violation of the 27 Fourteenth Amendment. He contends his “past disciplinary history of assaultive behavior 28 against staff has [him] constantly facing a real disadvantage with being able to have a fair 1 hearing with any disciplinary hearings.” Plaintiff asserts Defendant Barragan’s conduct, 2 as discussed in Count One, “clearly disregarded Department Orders in the pursuit of 3 retaliation,” violated Plaintiff’s rights, and demonstrated “clear disregard” for Department 4 Orders. He claims he continues to witness other inmates getting their disciplinary reports 5 dismissed, but he “continue[s] to face a disadvantage due to retaliation.” Plaintiff alleges 6 the “constant disregard of Department Orders and procedures” violates his due process 7 rights. He also asserts that he “did the grievance procedure and appeal to the highest level 8 but was denied relief on the appeal” and that Defendant Thornell ignored his grievance. 9 IV. Failure to State a Claim 10 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 11 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 12 v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Wolff v. McDonnell
418 U.S. 539 (Supreme Court, 1974)
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.
473 U.S. 432 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Heck v. Humphrey
512 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Sandin v. Conner
515 U.S. 472 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Wilkinson v. Dotson
544 U.S. 74 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Johnnie T. Warren
25 F.3d 890 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Salinas 155634 v. Thornell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salinas-155634-v-thornell-azd-2023.