Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05419/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05419-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO NA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jason R. McCleve,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

State of Arizona, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 19-05419-PHX-MTL (ESW)

ORDER

On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff Jason R. McCleve, who is confined in the Arizona 

State Prison Complex-Douglas, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a January 15, 2020 Order, the 

Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff 

had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint 

that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. In a March 30, 

2020 Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint because Plaintiff had failed 

to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint that 

cured the deficiencies identified in the Order.

On April 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 11). The 

Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and this action.

. . . .

Case 2:19-cv-05419-MTL--ESW Document 12 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 5
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 

against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 

has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 

A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 

not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 

relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 

experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 

allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 

are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681.

But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 

must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 

(9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 

U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 

. . . .

Case 2:19-cv-05419-MTL--ESW Document 12 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 5
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. Second Amended Complaint

In his single-count Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages 

from Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone. Plaintiff asserts a conditions-ofconfinement claim and alleges that Defendant Penzone “knowingly and intentionally” 

housed Plaintiff in the Durango Jail, which is condemned and has “known, pre-existing” 

black mold in the showers and ventilation system and asbestos in the building materials. 

Plaintiff claims he was confined in the Durango Jail between July 19, 2019 and March 17, 

2020. As a result of the alleged conditions, Plaintiff suffered “chronic breathing 

complications,” congestion, an infection in his nasal passages, a cough, and shortness of 

breath. 

III. Failure to State a Claim

A pretrial detainee has a right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment to be free from punishment prior to an adjudication of guilt. Bell v. Wolfish, 

441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). “Pretrial detainees are entitled to ‘adequate food, clothing, 

shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.’” Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 

107 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 

1982)). To state a claim of unconstitutional conditions of confinement against an 

individual defendant, a pretrial detainee must allege facts that show: 

(i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to 

the conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; 

(ii) those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of 

suffering serious harm; (iii) the defendant did not take 

reasonable available measures to abate that risk, even though a 

reasonable official in the circumstances would have 

appreciated the high degree of risk involved—making the 

consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious; and (iv) by 

not taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff’s 

injuries.

Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018).

Whether the conditions and conduct rise to the level of a constitutional violation is 

an objective assessment that turns on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. 

Case 2:19-cv-05419-MTL--ESW Document 12 Filed 05/19/20 Page 3 of 5
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Id.; Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005). However, “a de minimis

level of imposition” is insufficient. Bell, 441 U.S. at 539 n.21. In addition, the “‘mere lack 

of due care by a state official’ does not deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property 

under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 

(9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986)). Thus, a

plaintiff must “prove more than negligence but less than subjective intent—something akin 

to reckless disregard.” Id.

Plaintiff’s allegations are too vague and conclusory to state a conditions-ofconfinement claim. Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Penzone “knowingly and 

intentionally” exposed Plaintiff to unsafe living conditions, he fails to allege how Penzone 

was made aware of the black mold, asbestos, or condemnation. Plaintiff also fails to allege 

facts to support his injuries were the result of the alleged conditions of confinement. 

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and this action. 

IV. Dismissal without Leave to Amend

Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim in his Second Amended Complaint, the 

Court will dismiss his Second Amended Complaint. “Leave to amend need not be given 

if a complaint, as amended, is subject to dismissal.” Moore v. Kayport Package Express, 

Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is 

particularly broad where Plaintiff has previously been permitted to amend his complaint. 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Repeated failure to cure deficiencies is one of the factors to be considered in deciding 

whether justice requires granting leave to amend. Moore, 885 F.2d at 538. 

Plaintiff has made three efforts at crafting a viable complaint and appears unable to 

do so despite specific instructions from the Court. The Court finds that further 

opportunities to amend would be futile. Therefore, the Court, in its discretion, will dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend.

. . . .

. . . .

Case 2:19-cv-05419-MTL--ESW Document 12 Filed 05/19/20 Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) and this action are 

dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment 

accordingly.

(2) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the 

dismissal for failure to state a claim may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

(3) The docket shall reflect that the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) 

and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), has considered whether an appeal 

of this decision would be taken in good faith and finds Plaintiff may appeal in forma 

pauperis.

Dated this 19th day of May, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-05419-MTL--ESW Document 12 Filed 05/19/20 Page 5 of 5