Valentini 268586 v. Thornell

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedDecember 11, 2023
Docket4:23-cv-00323
StatusUnknown

This text of Valentini 268586 v. Thornell (Valentini 268586 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
Valentini 268586 v. Thornell, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Opinion

1 WO ASH 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Rick Wayne Valentini, No. CV-23-00323-TUC-SHR 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Ryan Thornell, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Rick Wayne Valentini, a frequent litigant1 who is confined in the Arizona 16 State Prison Complex-Yuma, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 (Doc. 1), an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2), two Motions for 18 Preliminary Injunction (Docs. 5, 6), and a Motion of Acquisition (Doc. 10). After review, 19 the Court denies the Motions for Preliminary Injunction, grants Plaintiff’s Application to 20 Proceed and Motion for Acquisition, and dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend for 21 the reasons set forth below. 22 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 23 The Court grants Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 25 The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $63.37. The remainder of the fee will 26 be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited to 27 Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 28 1 Plaintiff has filed at least nine actions in this Court. 1 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 2 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 3 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 4 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 5 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 7 has raised legally frivolous or malicious claims, failed to state a claim upon which relief 8 may be granted, or sought monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 9 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 10 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 11 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 12 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 13 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 14 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 15 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 16 Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a “short and plain 17 statement of the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8(d)(1) states “[e]ach allegation 18 must be simple, concise, and direct.” A complaint having the factual elements of a cause 19 of action scattered throughout the complaint and not organized into a “short and plain 20 statement of the claim” may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a). See Sparling v. 21 Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 22 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff has been repeatedly informed of these standards.2 23 Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to comply with federal pleading requirements. Local 24 Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4 requires, in part, all complaints by incarcerated persons “be 25 signed and legibly written or typewritten on forms approved by the court and in accordance 26 with the instructions provided with the forms.” The instructions provided with the court-

27 2 See Valentini v. Shinn, CV 2:22-01612-PHX-MTL (DMF) (D. Ariz. Order dated 28 Apr. 24, 2023); Valentini v. Shinn, CV 2:23-00325-PHX-MTL (DMF) (D. Ariz. Orders dated Apr. 7, 2023, and Sept. 26, 2023). 1 approved civil rights complaint form state a plaintiff may only allege “one violation per 2 count.” (Emphasis in original.) Each of Plaintiff’s eight claims cites numerous legal bases 3 for the claims, including “RLUIPA of 2000,”3 the “1st, 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments,” 4 the “American Cares Act,”4 and “Rouser v. White.”5 All of Plaintiff’s claims make 5 allegations against multiple Defendants and relate to events occurring over many weeks or 6 months. As such, Plaintiff’s allegations make it impossible for the Court to determine 7 what, exactly, Plaintiff’s claims are, and against whom they are directed. It is not the 8 responsibility of the Court to review a rambling narrative in an attempt to determine the 9 number and nature of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s allegations are neither short nor plain, 10 and it would be impossible for any Defendant to meaningfully respond to the Complaint. 11 Accordingly, the Court finds the Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal 12 Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 3.4 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, and it will 13 thus be dismissed. 14 III. Leave to Amend 15 By Monday, January 8, 2024, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint to 16 cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court- 17 approved form to use for filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court- 18

19 3 Plaintiff presumably refers to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). 20 4 Plaintiff presumably refers to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 21 (CARES) Act. In another case, the Court has informed Plaintiff there is no private right of action pursuant to the CARES Act. See Valentini v. Shinn, CV 2:22-01612-PHX-MTL 22 (DMF) (D. Ariz. Order dated Oct. 17, 2023). 23 5 As the Court has previously noted, it is unclear what case Plaintiff is referring to. See Valentini v. Shinn, CV 2:22-01612-PHX-MTL (DMF) (D. Ariz. Order dated Oct. 17, 24 2023). To the extent Plaintiff may be referring to Rouser v. White, 825 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2016), or the underlying consent decrees from the United States District Court for the 25 Eastern District of California, Plaintiff may not enforce the settlement or consent decrees entered in a separate action. See Cagle v. Sutherland, 334 F.3d 980, 986 (11th Cir. 2003); 26 Klein v. Zavaras, 80 F.3d 432, 435 (10th Cir. 1996); DeGidio v. Pung, 920 F.2d 525, 534 (8th Cir. 1990); Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1122–23 (5th Cir. 1986). Moreover, 27 standing alone, remedial orders and settlement terms cannot serve as a substantive basis for a § 1983 claim because they do not create “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by 28 the Constitution and laws.” Green, 788 F.3d at 1123–24.

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

Related

Cagle Ex Rel. Estate of Butler v. Sutherland
334 F.3d 980 (Eleventh Circuit, 2003)
De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. v. United States
325 U.S. 212 (Supreme Court, 1945)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
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)
William Rouser v. Theo White
825 F.3d 1076 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Devose v. Herrington
42 F.3d 470 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)
Klein v. Zavaras
80 F.3d 432 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)
DeGidio v. Pung
920 F.2d 525 (Eighth Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Valentini 268586 v. Thornell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valentini-268586-v-thornell-azd-2023.