Welch v. Maxson

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJune 15, 2020
Docket3:20-cv-08107
StatusUnknown

This text of Welch v. Maxson (Welch v. Maxson) 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
Welch v. Maxson, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Ryan William Welch, No. CV 20-08107-PCT-DGC (MHB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Unknown Maxson, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Ryan William Welch, who is confined in the Yavapai County Detention 16 Center, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and 17 an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 5). The Court 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 not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 23 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 24 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 26 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 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 that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 3 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 4 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 5 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint1 7 Plaintiff is charged in Yavapai County Superior Court case ##P-1300-CR- 8 201900295, P-1300-CR-201900296, and P-1300-CR-201900330 with multiple felony and 9 misdemeanor charges.2 10 In his four-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Yavapai County Sheriff Scott Mascher, 11 Sergeants Maxson and Sampson, and Judge John Napper. Plaintiff asserts claims of 12 excessive force and inadequate medical care, as well as claims regarding his pending 13 criminal case. He seeks monetary relief and release from custody. 14 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Maxson ordered eight officers to go 15 to Plaintiff’s cell in the middle of the night. Plaintiff asserts the officers forcefully cuffed 16 him, threw him into a wall, and pushed him down a flight of stairs while his hands were 17 cuffed behind his back. Plaintiff claims Defendant Maxson gave this order because she 18 did not like Plaintiff’s “language.” Plaintiff alleges he was not given a reason why the 19 officers were “doing this to [him].” 20 Plaintiff alleges he was cornered in his cell and “treated roughly,” which caused 21 bruising all over his arms and legs. Plaintiff also suffered a dislocated shoulder, a fractured 22 collarbone, and a fractured left wrist. Plaintiff’s hands and wrists were “cut up” from the

23 1 Although Plaintiff indicates this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 24 § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), Plaintiff has named only state actors. The Court will therefore construe 25 the Complaint as brought pursuant to § 1983. See Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Actions under § 1983 and those under Bivens are identical save for the 26 replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens.”). 27 2 See https://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx (search by last name “Welch,” first name “Ryan” in Yavapai County Superior Court) (last accessed 28 June 9, 2020). On April 29, 2020, the trial court vacated the trial. Id. On May 28, 2020, the trial court scheduled a pretrial conference. Id. 1 handcuffs being too tight, and he twisted his right ankle when he was pushed and fell down 2 the stairs. Plaintiff’s right hand is numb, and a knuckle is out of place. Plaintiff claims he 3 has suffered serious mental and physical torture, he is in fear for his life, his mental health 4 is suffering, he is in pain, and he stays awake at night because he is scared. 5 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that he has been allowed outside for recreation twice 6 since his arrest on March 4, 2019. Defendant Sampson is in charge of Plaintiff’s unit and 7 controls when detainees may have outside recreation time.

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)
Bradley v. Fisher
80 U.S. 335 (Supreme Court, 1872)
Pierson v. Ray
386 U.S. 547 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Younger v. Harris
401 U.S. 37 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Perez v. Ledesma
401 U.S. 82 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Preiser v. Rodriguez
411 U.S. 475 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Stump v. Sparkman
435 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 1978)
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)
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1989)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Welch v. Maxson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welch-v-maxson-azd-2020.