Willard Edward Davis, Jr. v. Ryan Thornell, et al.

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided May 28, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-00054·Unknown

Opinion

1 NH 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Willard Edward Davis, Jr., No. CV-25-00054-PHX-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Ryan Thornell, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On January 8, 2025, Plaintiff Willard Edward Davis, Jr., who is confined in the 16 Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a May 15, 2025 Order, 18 the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff 19 had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint 20 that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 21 On May 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. In a September 23, 22 2025 Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint because Plaintiff had failed 23 to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint that 24 cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 25 On October 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 19). He 26 later filed a Motion to Subpoena Photos of Injuries (Doc. 21) and a Motion for Status (Doc. 27 23). The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Subpoena, grant in part Plaintiff’s Motion 28 for Status, and dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 1 I. 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, fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 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). The 4 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, but 5 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 6 to amend. 7 II. Second Amended Complaint 8 In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Eighth Amendment claims for failure 9 to protect and sues Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry 10 (ADCRR) Director Ryan Thornell and Deputy Warden Fajardo. Plaintiff seeks injunctive 11 relief and $2.5 million in damages. 12 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that in November 2024, Defendants removed him 13 from a sex offender unit and placed him in a transition pod for severely mentally ill inmates. 14 He claims the general population inmates did a “roll call” and had “someone on the streets” 15 look up Plaintiff’s charges online. The next day, Plaintiff allegedly declined his two-hour 16 “out of cell” time, but some of the general population inmates “got the tower officer” to 17 open “3B502,” and the inmates ran in and assaulted Plaintiff. According to Plaintiff, there 18 we no floor officers present at the time but two officers arrived in the pod after the assault 19 to find Plaintiff with his door open and a laceration on his head. The officers initiated an 20 Incident Command System and took him to medical to be evaluated. Plaintiff claims a 21 Naphcare nurse took photos of his laceration and wounds and used steri-strips on his 22 wounds. Plaintiff asserts he was then taken to another overflow unit. Allegedly, the 23 incident was recorded on camera. 24 Plaintiff claims he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), nightmares, 25 and “lives in fear on a daily basis that he will be killed [by general population inmates] for 26 being a sex offender”. 27 In Count Two, Plaintiff claims that following the assault, “he asked verbally and in 28 writing on his [tablet],” to be transferred out of the unit, “but [his] requests fell on deaf 1 ears.”1 Plaintiff stayed in the same over-flow unit for two weeks and was then returned to 2 the same pod of general population inmates who assaulted him. He claims he keeps 3 “getting threatened, extorted, and spit [on]” and is in constant fear for his life. Plaintiff 4 claims Defendants’ failure to place him in protective segregation or a sex offender unit has 5 caused him PTSD and nightmares. 6 III. Failure to State a Claim 7 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 8 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 9 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 10 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 11 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific 12 injury as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an 13 affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 14 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976) (emphasis added).

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

Willard Edward Davis, Jr. v. Ryan Thornell, et al., (D. Ariz. 2026).

Willard Edward Davis, Jr. v. Ryan Thornell, et al. (Willard Edward Davis, Jr. v. Ryan Thornell, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
14 U.S. 304 (Supreme Court, 1816)
Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
Davidson v. Cannon
474 U.S. 344 (Supreme Court, 1986)
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)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)