Smith 197527 v. Schmidt

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedOctober 30, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-01323
StatusUnknown

This text of Smith 197527 v. Schmidt (Smith 197527 v. Schmidt) 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
Smith 197527 v. Schmidt, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO JL 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Albert Smith, No. CV 20-01323-PHX-MTL (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Unknown Schmidt, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On July 1, 2020, Plaintiff Albert Smith, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 16 Complex (ASPC)-Eyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a July 22, 2020 18 Order, the Court denied the deficient Application to Proceed with leave to refile within 30 19 days. 20 On August 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed a new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 (Doc. 6). The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 22 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 23 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 24 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 26 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 27 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 1 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 2 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 3 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 4 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 5 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 6 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 7 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 8 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 9 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 10 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 11 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 12 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 13 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 14 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 15 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 16 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 17 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 18 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 19 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 20 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 21 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 22 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 23 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 24 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 25 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 26 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 27 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 28 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 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 sues Deputy Wardens Schmidt and Kimble; 8 Sergeants J. Davis and Munley; Correctional Officers (CO) III Guevarra, Silva, and M. De 9 La Cruz; COs II Arnold and Williams; Central Classification Administrator Stacey 10 Crabtree; Property Officer S. Gutierrez; and an Arizona Department of Administration 11 (ADOA) Risk Management Officer. Plaintiff asserts claims of retaliation and loss of 12 property. He seeks monetary and injunctive relief, as well as termination of employment 13 and criminal prosecution of all Defendants. 14 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that in March or April 2018, he was reclassified from 15 level 5 maximum custody to level 4 close custody while he was housed in Special 16 Management Unit (SMU)-I.1 On May 25, 2018, Plaintiff was the victim of an assault by 17 other prisoners. On June 2, 2018, Plaintiff began filing grievances regarding the assault, 18 the “way [he] was being illegally held” in the mental health watch pod “for no reason,” and 19 the treatment he was receiving from officers. 20 Sometime in June 2018, Defendants Schmidt and Guevarra requested that Plaintiff 21 “drop” his grievances and told him they would move him from the mental health watch 22 pod to a close custody yard. Plaintiff told Defendants Schmidt and Guevarra that he would 23 not drop his grievances and would “take them all the way to the top.” Plaintiff continued 24 to go through the grievance process and ultimately appealed to the Central Office. 25 Following Plaintiff’s appeal, Defendants Schmidt and Guevarra went to Plaintiff’s cell and 26

27 1 According to information available online, Plaintiff was reclassified from maximum custody to close custody on April 25, 2018 and reclassified to maximum custody 28 on October 12, 2018. See https://corrections.az.gov/public-resources/inmate-datasearch (search by inmate number 197527) (last accessed Oct. 23, 2020). 1 told him to file all the grievances he wanted but they would never answer them and if they 2 “ha[d] to,” would leave him in the mental health watch pod with none of his property, 3 phone calls, or visits until his release date. 4 On August 23, 2018, immediately after Plaintiff filed a civil complaint,2 he was 5 moved to the detention unit and placed on a 2-A investigation “without provocation” or 6 having committed “any sort of” disciplinary infraction. Plaintiff asked why “this” was 7 happening, and Defendants Schmidt and Guevarra told Plaintiff, in the presence of non- 8 parties SSU Officers and CO IV Stephans, that this is where they “house little babies” 9 while they file grievances and lawsuits and that Plaintiff would be housed there until he 10 rethought his decisions.

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

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Hudson v. Palmer
468 U.S. 517 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
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)
James F. Taylor v. MacE Knapp
871 F.2d 803 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Steven Evanoff
10 F.3d 559 (Eighth Circuit, 1993)
Russell Marcilis, II v. Township of Redford
693 F.3d 589 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Smith 197527 v. Schmidt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-197527-v-schmidt-azd-2020.