Valentini 268586 v. Shinn

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedApril 8, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-05608
StatusUnknown

This text of Valentini 268586 v. Shinn (Valentini 268586 v. Shinn) 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
Valentini 268586 v. Shinn, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO ASH 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Rick Valentini, No. CV 19-05608-PHX-MTL (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 David Shinn, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff Rick Valentini, who is confined in the Arizona 16 State Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a January 15, 2020 Order, the 18 Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff 19 had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint 20 that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 21 On January 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8). The 22 Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 23 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 24 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 25 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 27 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 28 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 1 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 2 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 3 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 4 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 5 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 6 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 7 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 8 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 9 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 10 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 11 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 12 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 13 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 14 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 15 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 16 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 17 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 18 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 19 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 20 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 21 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 22 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 23 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 24 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 25 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 26 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 27 to amend. 28 . . . . 1 II. First Amended Complaint 2 In his three-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names 21 different 3 Defendants employed in various capacities by the Arizona Department of Corrections 4 (ADC). Plaintiff styles his claims as related to disciplinary proceedings, access to the 5 courts, and “defrauding [the] federal government.” Put broadly, Plaintiff alleges that he 6 received disciplinary tickets on six separate occasions for refusing to attend a Mandatory 7 Literacy class. In each instance, Plaintiff informed officials that he was exempt from the 8 class because he had received his G.E.D. in 1988 from the state of California. Plaintiff was 9 told each time that ADC did not accept G.E.D.’s from California, and that he was required 10 to attend the class. Plaintiff appealed each ticket, but they were all upheld, and Plaintiff 11 was sanctioned each time with 30 days in administrative segregation, the confiscation of 12 his property, an inability to attend religious services, and a change in custody status. 13 Plaintiff further alleges that ADC “receives $30,00 for each completed literacy test and 14 [ADC] wanted their money.” As relief, Plaintiff seeks to have all six tickets “removed,” 15 to have his custody status changed, to have his G.E.D. officially recognized, to be granted 16 a new clemency hearing, monetary relief, and punitive damages. 17 III. Failure to State a Claim 18 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 19 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 20 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 21 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 22 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 23 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 24 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 25 72, 377 (1976). 26 A. “Defrauding [the] Federal Government” 27 Plaintiff has no standing to sue on behalf of the federal government. Accordingly, 28 the First Amended Complaint will be dismissed to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief for 1 “defrauding [the] federal government.” 2 B. Access to the Courts 3 The right of meaningful access to the courts prohibits officials from actively 4 interfering with inmates’ attempts to prepare or file legal documents. Lewis v. Casey, 518 5 U.S. 343, 350 (1996). The right of access to the courts is only a right to bring petitions or 6 complaints to federal court and not a right to discover such claims or even to ligate them 7 effectively once filed with a court. Id. at 354. The right “guarantees no particular 8 methodology but rather the conferral of a capability–the capability of bringing 9 contemplated challenges to sentences or conditions of confinement before the courts.” Id. 10 at 356. 11 As a matter of standing, for an access-to-courts claim, a plaintiff must show that he 12 suffered an “actual injury” with respect to contemplated litigation. Id. at 349. To show 13 actual injury with respect to contemplated litigation, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the 14 defendants’ conduct frustrated or impeded him from bringing to court a nonfrivolous claim 15 that he wished to present. Id. at 352-53. 16 “[T]he injury requirement is not satisfied by just any type of frustrated legal claim.” 17 Id.

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

Related

Green v. Biddle
21 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1823)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
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)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Alvin Jones v. Dennis A. Baker
155 F.3d 810 (Sixth Circuit, 1998)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Beverati v. Smith
120 F.3d 500 (Fourth Circuit, 1997)
Torres v. Fauver
292 F.3d 141 (Third Circuit, 2002)
Griffin v. Vaughn
112 F.3d 703 (Third Circuit, 1997)
Jacks v. Crabtree
114 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Doddridge v. Thompson
9 U.S. 469 (Supreme Court, 1824)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Valentini 268586 v. Shinn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valentini-268586-v-shinn-azd-2020.