Villa v. Skinner

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedAugust 22, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-01523
StatusUnknown

This text of Villa v. Skinner (Villa v. Skinner) 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
Villa v. Skinner, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 KM 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Arcelie Torres Villa, No. CV-24-01523-PHX-JAT (MTM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Russell Skinner, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Arcelie Torres Villa, who is confined in a Maricopa 16 County Jail, filed a civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma 17 Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed and will dismiss the 18 Complaint with leave to amend. 19 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 20 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $17.64. The remainder 23 of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 24 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 26 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 2 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 3 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 5 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 7 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 8 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 9 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 10 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 11 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 12 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 13 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 14 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 15 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 16 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 17 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 18 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 19 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 20 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 21 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 22 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 23 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 24 must “continue to construe [self-represented parties’] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 25 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a self-represented prisoner] 26 ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. 27 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 . . . . 1 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts, a self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before 3 dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 4 banc). The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint because it fails to state a claim, with 5 leave to amend because it may possibly be amended to state a claim. 6 III. Complaint 7 In her three-count Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Defendants 8 Maricopa County Sheriff Russell Skinner, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), 9 the Estrella Jail, and Correctional Health Medical Services. 10 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges her Eighth Amendment rights have been violated. 11 She claims she is housed in conditions with visible black mold, asbestos, and lead in the 12 showers, sinks, drinking faucets, toilets, and ventilation system. She further alleges she is 13 given moldy oranges, apples, and bread, and there are mold spores in the air currents that 14 are toxic once inhaled, ingested, or touched. She claims everyone in the facility is being 15 poisoned and there is no appropriate health care available to diagnose or test for black mold 16 poisoning. Plaintiff states she has breathing problems, a cough, a sore throat, and constant 17 headaches. She claims she has submitted Health Needs Requests (HNRs) but when she is 18 seen, she is given ibuprofen. 19 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1997, claiming the 20 “facility as a whole is ignoring the current issues of black mold, as[bestos] and lead 21 poisoning.” She claims Defendant MCSO is ignoring the problem and ignoring her 22 medical needs. She states she is a thyroid cancer survivor and has been prescribed thyroid 23 medications and calcium supplements by her endocrinologist. After arriving at the jail, 24 Plaintiff was told she could not take outside medications and would have to be seen by 25 Defendant MCSO’s providers. Plaintiff did not receive her prescribed medications for 26 more than two weeks and was admitted to hospital for six days because of the medical 27 negligence. 28 . . . . 1 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1997, claiming 2 Defendant MCSO and “appropriate authorities” “have made incorrect use of funds as 3 accordance to . . . 1997[,] to fix such conditions that are illegal [and] unconstitutional that 4 visibly exist.” 5 IV. Failure to State a Claim 6 Although self-represented pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 7 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of 8 action. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal 9 interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim 10 that were not initially pled. Id. 11 A. Defendant Skinner 12 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 13 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 14 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

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)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
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)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
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)
Braillard v. Maricopa County
232 P.3d 1263 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2010)
Manuel Ortega Melendres v. Joseph Arpaio
784 F.3d 1254 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Hearns v. Terhune
413 F.3d 1036 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Sadoski v. Mosley
435 F.3d 1076 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Jonathon Castro v. County of Los Angeles
833 F.3d 1060 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Mary Gordon v. County of Orange
888 F.3d 1118 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Villa v. Skinner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villa-v-skinner-azd-2024.