Sullivan v. Arizona Department of Corrections

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMarch 10, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-00367
StatusUnknown

This text of Sullivan v. Arizona Department of Corrections (Sullivan v. Arizona Department of Corrections) 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
Sullivan v. Arizona Department of Corrections, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Antonio Raye Sullivan, No. CV 21-00367-PHX-MTL (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Department of Correction, et al., 13 14 Defendants.

15 16 On March 2, 2021, Plaintiff Antonio Raye Sullivan, who is confined in the Arizona 17 State Prison Complex-Phoenix in Phoenix, Arizona filed a pro se Complaint. Plaintiff did 18 not pay the $350.00 civil action filing fee and $52.00 administrative fee or file an 19 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will dismiss the Complaint with 20 leave to amend and will give Plaintiff thirty days to (1) pay the filing and administrative 21 fees or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and (2) file an amended 22 complaint on a court-approved form. 23 I. Payment of Filing Fee 24 When bringing an action, a prisoner must either pay the $350.00 filing fee and a 25 $52.00 administrative fee in a lump sum or, if granted the privilege of proceeding in forma 26 pauperis, pay the $350.00 filing fee incrementally as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 27 An application to proceed in forma pauperis requires an affidavit of indigence and a 28 certified copy of the inmate’s trust account statement for the six months preceding the filing 1 of the Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). An inmate must submit statements from each 2 institution where he was confined during the six-month period. Id. To assist prisoners in 3 meeting these requirements, the Court requires use of a form application. LRCiv 3.4. 4 If a prisoner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will assess an 5 initial partial filing fee of 20% of either the average monthly deposits or the average 6 monthly balance in Plaintiff’s account, whichever is greater. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). An 7 initial partial filing fee will only be collected when funds exist. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). 8 The balance of the $350.00 filing fee will be collected in monthly payments of 20% of the 9 preceding month’s income credited to an inmate’s account, each time the amount in the 10 account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 11 Because Plaintiff has not paid the $402.00 filing and administrative fees or filed an 12 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Plaintiff will be permitted thirty days from the 13 filing date of this Order to submit a properly executed and certified Application to Proceed 14 In Forma Pauperis, using the form included with this Order, or pay the $402.00 filing and 15 administrative fees. 16 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 17 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 18 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 20 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 21 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 22 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 23 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4 requires in part that “[a]ll complaints and 24 applications to proceed in forma pauperis by incarcerated persons shall be signed and 25 legibly written or typewritten on forms approved by the Court and in accordance with the 26 instructions provided with the forms.” Plaintiff’s Complaint is not on a court-approved 27 form as required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4. Plaintiff’s Complaint will therefore 28 1 be dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend, in order for Plaintiff to file an 2 amended complaint on a court-approved form. 3 III. Leave to Amend 4 Within thirty days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint on a court- 5 approved form. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for 6 filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the Court 7 may strike the amended complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to 8 Plaintiff. 9 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 10 Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 11 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 12 Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 13 A first amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 14 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 15 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat the original Complaint 16 as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the 17 original Complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without prejudice 18 is waived if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 19 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 20 If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he should be aware that the applicable 21 statute of limitations in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the forum state’s statute of 22 limitations for personal injury actions. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985). The 23 Arizona statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years. See Ariz. Rev. 24 Stat. § 12-542(1). Accrual of § 1983 claims is governed by federal law. Wallace v. Kato, 25 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007). Under federal law, a claim accrues when the plaintiff “knows 26 or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis of the action.” Pouncil v. Tilton, 704 27 F.3d 568, 574 (9th Cir. 2012); Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 381 (9th 28 1 Cir. 1998). Thus, to be timely, Plaintiff’s claims must have accrued no more than two 2 years before his Complaint was filed on March 2, 2021. 3 If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements 4 telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name 5 of the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to 6 do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of 7 Plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of 8 that Defendant’s conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 9 Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he names as a Defendant. If 10 Plaintiff fails to affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific 11 injury suffered by Plaintiff, the allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for 12 failure to state a claim. Conclusory allegations that a Defendant or group of 13 Defendants has violated a constitutional right are not acceptable and will be 14 dismissed.

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

Related

Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States
429 U.S. 17 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Wilson v. Garcia
471 U.S. 261 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Wallace v. Kato
127 S. Ct. 1091 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Powell v. Alexander
391 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2004)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Michael Andrew Hunter
19 F.3d 895 (Fourth Circuit, 1994)
Laurie Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc.
698 F.3d 1128 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park
159 F.3d 374 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)
Taylor v. List
880 F.2d 1040 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc.
931 F.2d 1320 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sullivan v. Arizona Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-arizona-department-of-corrections-azd-2021.