Valenzuela v. Monson

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided April 8, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-05162·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO KM 2 3 4 5 8 9 Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela, No. CV 19-05162-PHX-MTL (MHB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Jason Monson, et al., 13 14 Defendants.

15 16 On September 12, 2019, Plaintiff Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela,1 who is confined 17 in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence, filed a “Motion for Leave to File Pursuant 18 to Court Order,” lodged a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 19 filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On September 12 and 13, and October 20 3 and 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed Motions to File Exhibits Under Seal and attached relevant 21 exhibits. In a December 23, 2019 Order, the Court granted the Motion to File, the 22 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and the Motions to File Exhibits Under Seal; 23 directed the Clerk of Court file the Complaint; and dismissed the Complaint with leave to 24 amend. 25 On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended 26 Complaint and a First Amended Complaint. On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion 27 28 1 Plaintiff has also filed Complaints under the names Enrique Gabrielle Mendez, Enrique Mendez-Valenzuela, and Quennell Glover. Plaintiff is biologically male, but identifies as female and uses feminine pronouns to reference herself. 1 for Emergency Removal and an “Expedited Motion for Emergency Injunction.” In a 2 March 2, 2020 Order, the Court granted the Motion for Leave to File, dismissed the First 3 Amended Complaint with leave to amend, and denied the Motions for Emergency Removal 4 and Emergency Injunction. 5 On March 31, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File (Doc. 34) and lodged 6 a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 35). Plaintiff has also filed a March 5, 2020 Motion 7 to file Medical Notes Under Seal (Doc. 24); March 5, 2020 Motion to File Copies of Death 8 Threats Under Seal (Doc. 26); March 5, 2020 Motion to Allow Subpoena (Doc. 28) and 9 Motion to Issue Subpoena (Doc. 29); March 17, 2020 Motion for Temporary Restraining 10 Order (Doc. 30); March 19, 2020 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 31); 11 March 31, 2020 Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Doc. 32); and April 1, 2020 Motion 12 for Removal (Doc. 36). 13 The Court will grant the Motion for Leave to File; direct the Clerk of Court to file 14 the Second Amended Complaint; dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with leave to 15 amend; and give Plaintiff 30 days to file a third amended complaint. The Court will resolve 16 the remaining pending Motions as discussed below. 17 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 18 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 19 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 21 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 22 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 23 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 24 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 25 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 26 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 27 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 28 1 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 2 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 3 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 4 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 5 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 6 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 7 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 8 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 9 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 10 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 11 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 12 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 13 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 14 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 15 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 16 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 17 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 18 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 19 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 20 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 21 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 22 to amend. 23 II. Second Amended Complaint 24 Plaintiff names 37 Defendants in her three-count Second Amended Complaint and 25 seeks money damages and injunctive relief. 26 In Count One, Plaintiff claims that from April 2019 to present, Plaintiff “has been 27 sexually assaulted by Angeles, Montgomery, Alvarez in June 2019, July 2019, August 28 2019 and she reported it to DW Monson, ADW Evans, ADW, Jensen, Warden Van Winkle, 1 DW Coleman, and they did not do anything about the assaults at all.” Plaintiff states she 2 “personally wrote” to Defendants Monson, Evans, and Jensen and “they did not respond to 3 her[;] they simply ignored her.” Plaintiff further claims she was “sexually assaulted 4 harassed by CO II Miller, Sgt. Medley, Sgt. Reyes, Sgt. Rodriguez, ADW Jensen, ADW 5 Evans and DW Monson did nothing to prevent or protect her when she personally told him 6 of assaults.” Plaintiff also claims she did not receive proper medical care after the assaults. 7 Plaintiff states she suffered injuries to her back, legs, head, face, eyes, jaw, “rectal and 8 other areas,” and stomach, as well as emotional and mental anguish. 9 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that from April 2019 to present, she has told 10 Defendants Monson, Jensen, Hutneck, Van Winkle, Barnes, Gurrola, Suekle, Coleman, 11 Renault, Repp, Kelly, and Ordaz “that she was threatened with bodily harm by [another 12 inmate] in 2019 who said he was gonna beat her down & smash her.” Plaintiff asserts 13 Defendants Monson, Van Winkle, Jensen, and Coleman “did not protect her, the assaults 14 happened and they denied her protection and care.” Plaintiff states she constantly fears for 15 her safety. 16 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that from January 2016 to present, she “has been 17 assaulted by DOC staff CO II Goodman, Miller, Jones, Chavez, Lewis, Velasquez, Castillo, 18 Reyna, Moses, Galvan, Pascarelli, Garcia, Ordaz, Kelly, Castro, Repp, Medley, Gurrola, 19 Renault, Coleman, Suekle, Jensen, [and] Evens.” Plaintiff further alleges “these staff 20 sexually

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

Valenzuela v. Monson, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Valenzuela v. Monson (Valenzuela v. Monson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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)
United States v. James C. Dunkel
927 F.2d 955 (Seventh Circuit, 1991)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Alex G. Merklinger
16 F.3d 670 (Sixth Circuit, 1994)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Russell Marcilis, II v. Township of Redford
693 F.3d 589 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Whitman v. HAWAIIAN TUG & BARGE CORP./YOUNG BROS., LTD.
27 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (D. Hawaii, 1998)
Environmental Council of Sacramento v. Slater
184 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (E.D. California, 2000)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)