Washington 327321 v. Arizona Department of Corrections

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedFebruary 24, 2025
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. 2025).

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, v. 11 ORDER 12 Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 On August 14, 2024, Plaintiff DeVon Washington, who is confined in the Arizona 17 State Prison Complex (ASPC)-Tucson, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a November 19, 2024 19 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because 20 Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended 21 complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the Order. 22 On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 9). 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 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 legally frivolous or malicious claims, fails to state a claim upon which relief may 1 be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 2 § 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 11 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 12 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 a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a 24 pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the 25 action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court 26 will dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because 27 it could possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 28 . . . . 1 II. First Amended Complaint 2 In his three-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues ASPC-Tucson 3 Winchester Unit Warden John McAdorey, Deputy Warden Reyes, Correctional Officer II 4 Galaz, and Senior Chaplain Ware. Plaintiff asserts claims regarding his exercise of 5 religion. He seeks reversal of all disciplinary reports and sanctions associated with the 6 claims he asserts, handwritten apologies from each Defendant, monetary relief, and his 7 costs and fees for this case. 8 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Galaz told Plaintiff to cut his beard during 9 visitation. Plaintiff explained “it was against a sincerely held religious belief.” Defendant 10 Galaz told Plaintiff it did not matter and Plaintiff had to follow policy. Plaintiff spoke with 11 chaplaincy staff and requested a shaving waiver for religious reasons. Defendant Ware 12 told Plaintiff his claims were “not credible” and if he did not want to “face discipline,” he 13 would have to conform and adhere to the grooming policy. Plaintiff reached out to 14 Defendant McAdorey, who told Plaintiff it was not a “requirement” of Plaintiff’s religion 15 but a mere personal preference Plaintiff could not exercise “due to policy.” “[W]hen 16 informed,” Defendant Reyes “did not put a stop to the actions against [Plaintiff] by one of 17 her officers for practicing [his] religion.” Defendant Galaz continuously issued 18 disciplinary reports against Plaintiff for exercising his religion and “escalat[ed] a situation 19 to an ‘ICS’ during a discussion about [his] sincerely held religious beliefs.” That day, 20 Plaintiff “went against [his] beliefs and cut [his beard] to their standards in order to avoid 21 punishment.” Defendant Galaz continued to harass Plaintiff even after he cut his beard by 22 threatening Plaintiff with disciplinary actions “to provoke [him].” 23 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ware told him only Sikh prisoners were 24 approved for shaving waivers. Plaintiff contends this denies him equal protection of the 25 laws. Plaintiff asserts that by enforcing this policy, Defendant McAdorey “creates a law” 26 abridging his privileges as a citizen. Plaintiff claims Defendant Galaz’s “action[s] against 27 [him] for practicing [his] religion” also abridge his privileges as a citizen. Plaintiff alleges 28 Defendant Reyes failed to stop her staff from punishing him for exercising his religion and 1 thereby denied him equal protection. As his injury, Plaintiff contends he was harassed, 2 denied a reasonable remedy, “[f]orced to act against [his] religious belief to avoid 3 punishment,” and subjected to disciplinary reports and sanctions. Plaintiff claims he also 4 suffered depression, anxiety, fear, mental anguish, and loss of privileges. 5 Plaintiff designates Count Three as a First Amendment discrimination claim. 6 Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ware informed him “only the S[]ikh religion could receive 7 shaving waivers” and Plaintiff could not receive such a waiver because he is Muslim. 8 Plaintiff claims Defendant Galaz singled him out for discipline and “pursued conflict.” 9 Plaintiff further asserts Defendants McAdorey and Reyes were aware Plaintiff was the only 10 prisoner at Winchester Unit “receiving punishment for [his] beard and . . .

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

Related

Livingston & Gilchrist v. Maryland Insurance
11 U.S. 506 (Supreme Court, 1813)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
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)
People of Guam v. Benny Toves Guerrero
290 F.3d 1210 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
KG Urban Enterprises, LLC v. Patrick
693 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2012)
Village of Willowbrook v. Olech
528 U.S. 562 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Warsoldier v. Woodford
418 F.3d 989 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

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-2025.