Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00353/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00353-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel Lee Baker,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-353-PHX-SMM

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se complaint alleging a variety of violations

of his civil rights incurred while a prisoner. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jay

R. Irwin for a Report and Recommendation. On September 13, 2007, the Magistrate Judge

filed a Report and Recommendation regarding Counts VI through XI of the First Amended

Complaint (Dkt. 53). On September 27, 2007, Defendants filed their Objection (Dkt. 54) to

the Report and Recommendation. After considering the Report and Recommendation and

the arguments raised in Defendants’ Objections thereto, the Court now issues the following

ruling. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court “must

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

made by the Magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d

Case 2:07-cv-00353-SMM Document 58 Filed 10/17/07 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

(9th Cir. 1983)). 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action on February 16, 2007 (Dkt. 1), and the matter was 

referred to Magistrate Judge Irwin (Dkt. 2). On June 8, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued

a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 12) which the Court adopted in its entirety (Dkt. 15).

In adopting that Report and Recommendation, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend

the complaint and ordered that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint be filed. 

In their motion for extension of time to respond (Dkt. 29), Defendants noted that the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation did not address Counts VI through XI of

the First Amended Complaint. The Magistrate Judge then issued a Report and

Recommendation screening the First Amended Complaint recommending that certain

Defendants be required to file answers to Counts VII, XI, X, and XI (Dkt. 53). Defendants

filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 54), requesting that the Court

determine the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s claims based on a different standard than that used

by the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff then filed a Response in opposition to Defendants’

Objection. (Dkt. 56.)

DISCUSSION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court must screen prisoner complaints and dismiss

claims that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge tested the sufficiency of Counts VI through XI by the standard which

requires that claims “can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond

doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle

him to relief.” (Report 4 (internal citations omitted).) Defendants assert that this “no set of

facts” language, see Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 45, 45-46 (1957), is no longer the standard

for determining whether a complaint states a claim. (Defs.’ Obj. 2-3.) Rather, the proper

standard is whether the plaintiff alleges “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

Case 2:07-cv-00353-SMM Document 58 Filed 10/17/07 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

plausible on its facts.” (Id. 2, quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, __ U.S. __, 127 S.

Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)(emphasis Defendants’).) Defendants further assert that Counts

VII, IX, X, and XI should be dismissed for failure to state a claim under the “plausibility”

standard of Twombly.

Twombly involved a claim under Sherman Act § 1, and the Supreme Court did not

discuss how or whether the “plausibility” standard applies to other actions. (Defs.’ Obj. 2.)

 Nor has the Ninth Circuit issued a written opinion addressing the applicable standard after

Twombly. Defendants point to a decision out of the Second Circuit applying a “flexible

plausibility standard” to an action brought against government officials, Iqbal v. Hasty, 490

F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2007). The Iqbal court noted that “conflicting signals [in the

Twombly opinion] create some uncertainty as to the intended scope of the Court’s decision.”

490 F.3d at 157.

Despite Defendants’ Objection, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation in full. Defendants contend that Counts VII, IX, X, and XI are not

plausible as alleged, but provide no support for that contention; Defendants do not explain

why those counts survive under the “no set of facts” standard but fail under the “plausibility”

standard. Therefore Court will not reject the Report and Recommendation solely because

it fails to mention a “plausibility” standard, particularly in light of the “conflicting signals”

contained in the Twombly opinion and the lack of Ninth Circuit guidance on the applicable

standard. Additionally, the Court notes the established body of precedent obligating the

Court to liberally construe pro se complaints. See, e.g., Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106

(1976). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

//

//

//

Case 2:07-cv-00353-SMM Document 58 Filed 10/17/07 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin (Dkt. 53).

DATED this 17th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00353-SMM Document 58 Filed 10/17/07 Page 4 of 4