Wilcox 182024 v. Peck

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedAugust 20, 2024
Docket3:24-cv-08115
StatusUnknown

This text of Wilcox 182024 v. Peck (Wilcox 182024 v. Peck) 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
Wilcox 182024 v. Peck, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Travis R. Wilcox, No. CV-24-08115-PCT-JAT (ASB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Clayton Peck, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Travis R. Wilcox was confined in the Yavapai County 16 Detention Center when he filed this action but currently is confined in the Arizona State 17 Prison Complex-Yuma. Initially, Plaintiff filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2), proposed 19 summonses (Doc. 4), and a letter seeking the appointment of counsel (Doc. 5). 20 Subsequently, he filed a Motion to Appoint Legal Counsel (Doc. 7), a Motion for Judgment 21 of Default (Doc. 12), and a Motion for Judgment by Default (Doc. 15). The Court will 22 grant the Application to Proceed, dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend, deny the 23 letter and motion seeking counsel, and deny the motions seeking default judgment. 24 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 25 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 28 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 1 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 3 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 4 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 5 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 6 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 7 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 8 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 9 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 10 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 11 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 12 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 13 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 14 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 15 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 16 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 17 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 18 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 19 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 20 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 21 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 22 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 23 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 24 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 25 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 26 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 27 must “continue to construe [self-represented litigant’s] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 28 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a self-represented prisoner] 1 ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. 2 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 3 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 4 facts, a self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before 5 dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 6 banc). The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave 7 to amend because it may possibly be amended to state a claim. 8 III. Complaint 9 In his three-count Complaint,1 Plaintiff sues Defendant Yavapai County Adult 10 Probation Department Officer Clayton Peck and Supervisor Chad Fieple in their individual 11 and official capacities. He seeks monetary damages and for Defendant Peck to be 12 disciplined. 13 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges a violation of his right to due process and the 14 prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contends he was released to a 15 rehabilitation facility, contracted meningitis, was taken to a hospital, and was then 16 discharged from the rehabilitation facility because he had a highly contagious disease. 17 Plaintiff asserts he was in contact with his probation officer the “whole time.” 18 Plaintiff alleges Defendant Peck received a false tip that Plaintiff was selling 19 fentanyl to a 17-year-old and “made it his mission to get [Plaintiff] off the streets by any 20 means.” Plaintiff asserts Defendant Peck told him to report to a drug testing facility for a 21 urinalysis, despite knowing the facility would not allow Plaintiff into the facility because 22 he had meningitis. He contends he called the facility and asked if he could come in, but 23 the facility told him “absolutely not.” 24 Plaintiff alleges that when he informed Defendant Peck that the facility would not 25 allow him to come inside, Defendant Peck told him, “ok.” However, Defendant Peck 26 proceeded to obtain a warrant for Plaintiff’s arrest. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Peck “went 27

28 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint contains numerous minor misspellings. The Court, when quoting the Complaint, has corrected these without specifically noting them. 1 before a magistrate and swore an oath” that Plaintiff did not go for the urinalysis, but “only 2 told half of the story” and “maliciously omitted that [Plaintiff] had meningitis.” He claims 3 Defendant Peck omitted “crucial facts [in] his sworn affidavit” and “lied to get a warrant.” 4 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges he was subjected to a “conspiracy to interfere with 5 civil rights.” He claims Defendant Peck “worked with an unverified informant” who 6 falsely stated that Plaintiff was selling fentanyl to the informant’s 17-year-old sister. 7 Plaintiff asserts the informant has “informed on many people for silent witness money.” 8 Plaintiff contends the informant was sitting in Plaintiff’s chair in Plaintiff’s room where 9 2.3 grams of methamphetamine were found.

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

Related

Warth v. Seldin
422 U.S. 490 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Kentucky v. Graham
473 U.S. 159 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Heck v. Humphrey
512 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court, 1994)
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)
Mothershed v. Justices of the Supreme Court
410 F.3d 602 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Buckley v. City of Redding
66 F.3d 188 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wilcox 182024 v. Peck, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilcox-182024-v-peck-azd-2024.