Wilkins v. Edmonson

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedApril 20, 2020
Docket3:20-cv-08032
StatusUnknown

This text of Wilkins v. Edmonson (Wilkins v. Edmonson) 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
Wilkins v. Edmonson, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Cody Wilkins, No. CV 20-08032-PCT-JAT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Officer Edmonson, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff Cody Wilkins, who is confined in the Yavapai 16 County Detention Center, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will 18 dismiss the 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 $24.00. 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 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. Complaint 7 In his four-count Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants Yavapai County Public 8 Defender Harvel Golden and Yavapai County Detention Officers Edmonson, Lamb, 9 Roberts, and Holdsworth. In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, for 10 Defendants Edmonson and Lamb to be held accountable for tampering with his mail, and 11 for Defendants Roberts and Holdsworth to be fired and held responsible for their actions. 12 In Count One, Plaintiff raises a “tampering with mail” claim. He alleges that on 13 January 8, 2020, Defendant Edmondson brought him mail from the District Court, but the 14 envelope had been unsealed and taped shut and the Application to Proceed In Forma 15 Pauperis form that had been sent to Plaintiff was missing. Plaintiff asserts he contacted 16 Defendant Lamb and asked why his mail had been opened and the form was missing. 17 According to Plaintiff, Defendant Lamb told Plaintiff he had found other forms. Plaintiff 18 claims that as soon as he told Defendant Lamb “he had committed a federal crime,” 19 Defendant Lamb stated that no one wanted to handle Plaintiff’s mail or bring it to him and 20 that he was “kidding around [and] that it was a joke.” Plaintiff contends Defendant Lamb 21 “continued to lie.” Plaintiff alleges that when he requested to speak to a supervisor, his 22 request was denied. Plaintiff claims his access to the courts was hindered and his ability 23 to file a lawsuit was disrupted. 24 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges he was placed in imminent harm. He claims that at 25 some point during his detention from June 1 to August 21, 2019, Defendant Roberts took 26 Plaintiff out of his housing unit, escorted him to the hallway, and threatened that he “was 27 going to have [Plaintiff’s] eyes blackened.” Plaintiff contends that after Defendant Roberts 28 threatened him, Defendant Roberts turned off the television for a week and the air 1 conditioning for two weeks “in an attempt to try and get other inmates to hurt [Plaintiff] 2 and ostracize [Plaintiff].” Plaintiff contends he was “psychologically damaged,” placed in 3 “imminent danger,” subjected to a “hostile atmosphere,” and “punished in a cruel way.” 4 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges he was subjected to retaliation. He claims he 5 requested new sheets because his sheet had blood on it, but the new sheet he received had 6 strange stains on it and did not smell clean. Plaintiff contends he requested another sheet, 7 but it was “lockdown hours at night” and his request was denied. He alleges he wanted to 8 go to sleep, but could not, so he “kept pressing [the] call button to get new sheets and was 9 denied.” Plaintiff claims that soon after, three officers took Plaintiff and his cellmate to a 10 transfer cell, which did not have a bed, and left them in that cell for six hours. Plaintiff 11 asserts he and his cellmate were banging on the door, and Defendant Holdsworth came into 12 the cell, yelled at them to shut up, and threatened to taze them if they were not quiet.

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

Related

Gutierrez v. United Foods, Inc.
11 F.3d 556 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)
Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Polk County v. Dodson
454 U.S. 312 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Lewis v. Casey
518 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 1996)
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)
Victor Frank Szijarto v. Charles F. Legeman
466 F.2d 864 (Ninth Circuit, 1972)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Alan Kimbrough McFadden v. Eddie Lucas
713 F.2d 143 (Fifth Circuit, 1983)
In the Matter of Anne Pilsbury
866 F.2d 22 (Second Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wilkins v. Edmonson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkins-v-edmonson-azd-2020.