Washington 327321 v. Arizona Department of Corrections

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedNovember 19, 2024
Docket4:24-cv-00398
StatusUnknown

This text of Washington 327321 v. Arizona Department of Corrections (Washington 327321 v. Arizona Department of Corrections) 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
Washington 327321 v. Arizona Department of Corrections, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 WO JL 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 DeVon Washington, No. CV-24-00398-TUC-SHR 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Arizona Department of Corrections, et 13 al., 14 Defendants.

15 16 Plaintiff DeVon Washington, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex- 17 Tucson, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and 18 an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the 19 Complaint with leave to amend. 20 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 21 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. § 1915(b)(1). The 23 Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $30.13. The remainder of the fee will be 24 collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited to 25 Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. § 1915(b)(2). 26 The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government agency to 27 collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 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, fails to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief. § 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 16 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 17 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 pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 25 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 26 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 27 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 1 If the Court determines a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a 2 pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the 3 action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court 4 will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because it could 5 potentially be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 In his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues the Arizona Department of Corrections, 8 Rehabilitation and Reentry, “Director” Thorton, Warden McAdorey, Assistant Deputy 9 Warden Reyes, Senior Chaplain Ware, and Correctional Officer II Galaz. Plaintiff asserts 10 claims regarding his exercise of his religion. He seeks monetary relief, expungement of all 11 disciplinary reports and sanctions, a shaving waiver, a handwritten apology from all 12 Defendants, and his court costs for this case. 13 Plaintiff designates Count One as a First Amendment claim regarding the exercise 14 of his religion. Plaintiff alleges Defendants are forcing him to disregard his religion to 15 avoid punishment. Plaintiff asserts “[t]hey” have placed a substantial burden on him by 16 enforcing their standard grooming policy when it “differs from what is written in the sacred 17 text of [his] religion.” Plaintiff claims he has explained and shown Defendants “where it 18 says ‘cut the mustache short and leave the beard as it is,’” but “[t]hey” have denied his 19 request for a shaving waiver, stating his “claims are not credible.” As his injury, Plaintiff 20 alleges he received disciplinary reports and sanctions, he is fearful and mentally drained, 21 his visits have been canceled, he was forced to “go against” his religious beliefs, and he 22 has suffered “character def[a]mation.” 23 Plaintiff designates Count Two as a Fourteenth Amendment “basic necessities” 24 claim. Plaintiff alleges that “by forcing their policy on [him, D]efendants are creating laws 25 that abridge [his] privileges as a citizen of the United States and denying [him] equal 26 protection of the laws.” As his injury, Plaintiff claims he is “forced to go against [his] 27 religious beliefs in order to avoid punishment,” and he is receiving disciplinary reports and 28 sanctions. 1 Plaintiff designates Count Three as a First Amendment discrimination claim. 2 Plaintiff alleges all Defendants informed him “only the S[]ikh religion ha[s] the ability to 3 attain a shaving waiver for religious purposes,” although Plaintiff has “explained and 4 shown proof of [his] religious text ordering [him] to ‘cut the mustache short and leave the 5 beard as it is.’” Plaintiff contends Defendants are discriminating against him based on his 6 religion because “they have allowed another religion this liberty while denying [his] the 7 same.” As his injury, Plaintiff claims he has been singled out and treated differently and 8 unfavorably, he has been “made to seem as if [he is] a source of trouble,” he is “disturbed 9 mentally and fearful,” and he is receiving disciplinary reports and sanctions. 10 IV. Failure to State a Claim 11 To prevail on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show (1) acts by the defendants 12 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges, or immunities 13 and (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163–64 (9th 14 Cir. 2005). In addition, a plaintiff must allege he suffered a specific injury as a result of 15 the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link between the 16 injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371–72, 377 17 (1976). 18 A.

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

Related

Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984)
O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz
482 U.S. 342 (Supreme Court, 1987)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Joe Lowell McElyea Jr. v. Governor Bruce Babbitt
833 F.2d 196 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Dawud Halisi Malik v. Neal Brown
16 F.3d 330 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Nos. 94-1247, 94-1248
19 F.3d 873 (Third Circuit, 1994)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Gauvin v. Trombatore
682 F. Supp. 1067 (N.D. California, 1988)
Village of Willowbrook v. Olech
528 U.S. 562 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Gen-Probe, Inc. v. Amoco Corp., Inc.
926 F. Supp. 948 (S.D. California, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Washington 327321 v. Arizona Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-327321-v-arizona-department-of-corrections-azd-2024.