Smith 213317 v. Unknown Parties

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided April 20, 2023·No. 2:22-cv-02113·Unknown

Opinion

1 KM 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Floyd Smith, No. CV 22-02113-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Unknown, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File 16 Amended Complaint (Doc. 8), First Amended Complaint (Doc. 9), and Motion for 17 Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 11). The Court will grant the Motion for Extension of 18 Time, accept the First Amended Complaint as timely filed, deny the Motion for 19 Appointment of Counsel, and dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 20 I. Background 21 On December 14, 2022, Plaintiff Floyd Smith, who is confined in the Arizona State 22 Prison Complex-Lewis, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 23 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a January 19, 2023 Order, the Court 24 granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. On 25 February 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time. On February 23, 2023, 26 he filed a First Amended Complaint and Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 27 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 28 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 1 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 3 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 4 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 5 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 6 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 7 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 8 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 9 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 10 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 11 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 12 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 13 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 14 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 15 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 16 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 17 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 18 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 19 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 20 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 21 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 22 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 23 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 24 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 25 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 26 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 27 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 28 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 1 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 2 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 3 to amend. 4 III. First Amended Complaint 5 Plaintiff names the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry 6 (ADC) and Tactical Search Unit (TSU) Officers John Doe 1 – 5 as Defendants in his three 7 count First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and money damages. 8 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights 9 when they used excessive force on him. Plaintiff claims that on April 27, 2022, a TSU 10 search team conducted a search of Plaintiff’s unit in response to a prisoner attacking a 11 correctional officer the previous day. The attacking prisoner had already been removed 12 from the unit. Each prisoner was required to go through a metal detector before re-entering 13 the unit. Plaintiff set off the metal detector because he has metal in his body. Plaintiff also 14 has a dislocated shoulder and requested “two sets of cuffs due to his shoulder issue.” In 15 response, Defendant Doe 1 “got upset and said he was not playing.” Defendant Doe 1 then 16 grabbed Plaintiff’s right shoulder and escorted him outside and told him to lay face down, 17 on the dirt. Plaintiff had difficulty breathing and asked to change positions, but was told 18 he could not. 19 Defendants Doe 2 and Doe 3 held Plaintiff down, making it harder for him to 20 breathe. Plaintiff requested water, but was denied. A nurse came with Plaintiff’s 21 medications but Plaintiff was denied his medications. Plaintiff claims his “PTSD 22 symptoms began and when that happened Defendants John Does 2 and 3 picked up . . . 23 Plaintiff and took him inside as he was not responding well.” After some time, Plaintiff 24 was taken back outside and told to lay in the dirt, face down. Plaintiff states that “after all 25 this, [he] was able to see a mental health person and that is when he was able to get the 26 needed medications and water.” Plaintiff claims “this is the Defendant [ADC’s] way of 27 doing things—punish innocent inmates when only one or two do something wrong.” 28 In Count Two, Plaintiff claims Defendant ADC retaliated against him, in violation 1 of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff asserts Defendant ADC has policies that “cause harm 2 in one form or another when an employee is attacked or if an inmate acts weird.” Plaintiff 3 contends “several other inmates are subjected to harsh punishment, mass punishment is the 4 standard that is done in retaliation and nothing more.” Plaintiff claims that retaliation by 5 staff “towards innocent inmates only brings up additional mental harm and ways inmates 6 can think of getting even.” 7 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Doe 4 and Doe 5 violated his Fifth 8 and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they took Plaintiff’s property “for no reason other 9 than retaliation for the attack on another officer and complaining about the treatment 10 handed down.” Plaintiff claims he lost his property without due process. 11 IV. Failure to State a Claim 12 A. Count One 13 When a prisoner claims that prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights 14 by using excessive physical force, the relevant inquiry is “whether force was applied in a 15 good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause 16 harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992).

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

Smith 213317 v. Unknown Parties, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Smith 213317 v. Unknown Parties (Smith 213317 v. Unknown Parties) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Hudson v. Palmer
468 U.S. 517 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Hudson v. McMillian
503 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1992)
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)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Andre Dennison v. Charles Ryan
522 F. App'x 414 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Taylor v. List
880 F.2d 1040 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)