Williams 190857 v. Ryan

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMarch 12, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-00068
StatusUnknown

This text of Williams 190857 v. Ryan (Williams 190857 v. Ryan) 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
Williams 190857 v. Ryan, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO KM 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Bennett Laquan Williams, No. CV 20-00068-PHX-MTL (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Bennett Laquan Williams, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 16 Complex-Eyman, has 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 $7.74. The remainder of 23 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 Plaintiff names former Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) Director Charles 8 L. Ryan, Grievance Coordinator Miller, Deputy Warden Ping, and Property Officer 9 Comacho as Defendants in his five-count Complaint. Plaintiff seeks money damages. 10 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ryan violated his First Amendment rights 11 by confiscating compact discs (CDs) containing evidence in his criminal case. Plaintiff 12 states he raised this claim in a previously filed case, CV 18-02274-PHX-MTL (DMF),1 but 13 Ryan was dismissed “for failure to show personal involvement.” Plaintiff claims that in 14 light of “newly discovered evidence with the recent ruling in News v. Ryan CV 02245- 15 PHX-ROS (Nov. 2019),” he is “refiling the complaint against Charles Ryan and his 16 subordinates because the Ninth Cir. has instructed that § 1983 allows a Plaintiff to impose 17 liability upon a supervisor/director who creates, promulgates implements and advances the 18 operations of a policy that’s unconstitutional.” Plaintiff further states that on May 12, 2016, 19 he was charged with new crimes while incarcerated and the evidence that was taken from 20 him “was pertinent to that fact.” Plaintiff asserts he “expressed to the 21 administration/director that he was in dire need of his evidence because he was in the 22 middle of preparing for his appeal.” Plaintiff contends Defendant Ryan “failed [in] his 23 duty to provide ‘legal care’ by not acknowledging provisions within his policy such as 24 (D.O.) 914.6.18(B) which states a legal publication taken from a court case shall not be 25

26 1 In a July 5, 2019 Order in CV 18-02274-PHX-MTL (DMF), the Court dismissed 27 Defendant Ryan without prejudice, ordered service on Defendant Ulibarri, and required Defendant Ulibarri to answer the Second Amended Complaint. Defendant Ulibarri 28 returned the Waiver of Service but did not file an answer. In a February 10, 2020 Order, the Court entered default against Defendant Ulibarri. 1 withheld if the unauthorized content is reasonabl[y] necessary to understand the 2 fundamental issue.” 3 In Count Two, Plaintiff claims Defendant Miller violated his First Amendment 4 rights when, while investigating Plaintiff’s grievances regarding the confiscated CDs, he 5 failed to “resolve the issue in dispute as well as to provide a duty of ‘legal care.’” Plaintiff 6 further claims his evidence was confiscated under Department Order 914.07, and claims 7 this policy was found unconstitutional in News v. Ryan, CV 15-02245-PHX-ROS. Plaintiff 8 asserts that as a result, he was unable to meet the filing deadline for his state Rule 32 post- 9 conviction petition. 10 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ping violated his First Amendment 11 rights when, while investigating Plaintiff’s grievance regarding the loss and destruction of 12 his legal CDs, Defendant Ping failed to “resolve any dispute as well as to provide a duty 13 of ‘legal care’ to prohibit any wrongdoing to Mr.

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)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Hudson v. Palmer
468 U.S. 517 (Supreme Court, 1984)
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)
United States v. Johnnie T. Warren
25 F.3d 890 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Rhodes v. Robinson
408 F.3d 559 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Flournoy v. Fairman
897 F. Supp. 350 (N.D. Illinois, 1995)
Spencer v. Moore
638 F. Supp. 315 (E.D. Missouri, 1986)
Baltoski v. Pretorius
291 F. Supp. 2d 807 (N.D. Indiana, 2003)
Ashann-Ra v. Com. of Va.
112 F. Supp. 2d 559 (W.D. Virginia, 2000)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Williams 190857 v. Ryan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-190857-v-ryan-azd-2020.