Valez v. Corrections Corporation of America

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided October 9, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-01400·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 8 9 Carlos Valez, No. CV 20-01400-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Corrections Corporation of America, et 13 al., 14 Defendants.

15 On July 15, 2020, Plaintiff Carlos Valez, who is confined in the Northern Nevada 16 Correctional Center in Carson City, Nevada, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant 17 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel and paid the filing and 18 administrative fees. In a September 8, 2020 Order, the Court denied without prejudice the 19 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed 20 to state a claim, and gave Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint that cured the 21 deficiencies identified in the Order. 22 On September 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 5). The 23 Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 24 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 25 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 26 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 27 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 28 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 1 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 2 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 3 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 4 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 5 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 6 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 7 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 9 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 10 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 11 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 12 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 13 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 14 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 15 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 16 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 17 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 18 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 19 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 20 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 21 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 22 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 23 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 24 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 25 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 26 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 27 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 28 to amend. 1 II. First Amended Complaint 2 In his three-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and 3 monetary damages from Defendants Corrections Corporation of America (CCA),1 Warden 4 B. Thomas, Lieutenant Perez, Case Counselor Ortega, Case Manager Norvaes, and 5 Investigator Bawlick. 6 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges he was subjected to excessive force in violation of 7 his Eighth Amendment rights. He claims he was awakened on February 2, 2018, when 8 Defendant Perez kicked his cell door and directed Plaintiff to strip naked. Plaintiff 9 contends he complied and stood naked at the front of his cell door. He alleges Defendant 10 Perez began pointing at Plaintiff’s penis, while Defendants Ortega, Bawlick, and Norvaes 11 laughed. 12 Plaintiff contends Defendant Perez then instructed Plaintiff to submit to restraints. 13 Plaintiff asserts that when he reached for his underwear to cover his genitals, he was 14 sprayed with “O.C. Pepper Spray” for ten seconds. He claims his cell door was then opened 15 and several officers entered his cell and “began beating Plaintiff,” knocking him to the 16 floor and kicking Plaintiff in the head until he lost consciousness. Plaintiff alleges that 17 witnesses told him that he was then dragged, naked, across the dayroom floor by several 18 officers and placed in the shower. 19 Plaintiff claims he awoke in a different cell, with his underwear on backward. He 20 alleges he inspected his body, discovered bruises on his upper body and large lumps on his 21 head, and began requesting to be seen by medical personnel for his injuries. He contends 22 his requests were denied and he was denied medical request forms. 23 Plaintiff alleges this incident occurred because he is a validated Hispanic gang 24 member. He claims he had bruised ribs, a skin rash, and a bloody nose; continues to suffer 25 headaches and pain from his injuries; has developed high blood pressure from the O.C. 26 Pepper Spray; and has long-term breathing difficulties and mental and emotional stress. 27

28 1 Corrections Corporation of America has changed its name to CoreCivic as part of a rebranding. 1 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges he was denied medical treatment, in violation of the 2 Eighth Amendment. He claims that for several weeks after the February 2 incident, he 3 requested to be seen for his injuries. He alleges he was denied medical treatment and now 4 suffers daily headaches, has mental and emotional stress, and has developed high blood 5 pressure. 6 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges he was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right 7 to due process. He claims that after the February 2 incident, he was placed in a disciplinary 8 cell and was denied access to his property for weeks. He contends that when he did receive 9 his property, several items of discovery from his criminal case—approximately 200 10 pages—were missing or destroyed. Plaintiff asserts he submitted an inmate request form 11 regarding the missing property, and a staff member explained the property was not returned 12 because it had been contaminated from the O.C. Pepper Spray. Plaintiff claims he has been 13 unable to replace the property and was not given an opportunity to mail out the property. 14 III. Failure to State a Claim 15 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 16 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 17 v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

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

Valez v. Corrections Corporation of America, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Valez v. Corrections Corporation of America (Valez v. Corrections Corporation of America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Buckner v. Toro
116 F.3d 450 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
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)
Timothy Patrick v. Greg Martin
402 F. App'x 284 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Hernandez
109 F.3d 13 (First Circuit, 1997)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Charles J. Oltarzewski, Jr. v. Marcia Ruggiero
830 F.2d 136 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell
981 F.2d 1062 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)