Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2012cv00916/697698/6
Timestamp: 2017-10-20 23:42:17
Document Index: 770858163

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1997', '§ 1915', '§ 1997', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1915']

ORDER - for Esmael v. Tagliaferri et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings
Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Arizona Arizona District Court Esmael v. Tagliaferri et al Filing 6
Esmael v. Tagliaferri et al
ORDER - (1) Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted. (Doc. 2.) (2) The Complaint and this action are dismissed for failure to state a claim without leave to amend. (3) Plaintiff's motion to amend the demand for co mpensatory relief in his Complaint is denied. (Doc. 5.) (4) The Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action. (5) The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 6/26/12.(LAD)
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Kedir Essa Esmael, 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 Geri Tagliaferri, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 12-0916-PHX-RCB (MEA) ORDER 15 Plaintiff Kedir Essa Esmael, who is confined in the Eloy Detention Center (EDC), a 16 Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) facility,1 in Eloy, Arizona, has filed a pro se civil 17 rights Complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of 18 Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 19 1, 2.) Plaintiff has also filed a motion to amend the damages sought in his Complaint. (Doc. 20 5.) The Court will dismiss the Complaint and this action and deny the motion as moot. 21 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 22 Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. (Doc. 2.) This 23 action was opened as a “prisoner” civil rights case and referred to the Court’s staff for review 24 pursuant to LR Civ. 72.1(b). A “prisoner” is statutorily defined as “any person incarcerated 25 26 27 28 1 EDC holds immigration detainees pursuant to contract with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). See http://www.cca.com/facility/ eloy-detention-center/ (last visited June 13, 2012). 1 or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated 2 delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, 3 pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h). That 4 is, a “prisoner” is a person who is “currently detained as a result of accusation, conviction, 5 or sentence for a criminal offense.” Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 885, 886 (9th Cir. 2002) 6 (citing Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2000)). An alien pending 7 deportation proceedings, which are civil rather than criminal in nature, is not a “prisoner,” 8 so long as the alien is not also facing criminal charges. Id. at 885-87. 9 At the time Plaintiff commenced this action, he was in the custody of Immigration and 10 Customs Enforcement (ICE) as an immigration detainee and not in connection with pending 11 criminal proceedings. Plaintiff is not, therefore, a “prisoner” within the meaning of 28 12 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(2), 1915A, or 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, and he is not subject to the incremental 13 fee payment requirement of § 1915(a)(2). Plaintiff otherwise qualifies to proceed in forma 14 pauperis. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 15 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 16 The Court is required to screen complaints brought in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(e)(2). The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 18 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has 20 raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 21 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 22 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 23 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 24 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does not 25 demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant- 26 unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). 27 “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 28 -2- 1 statements, do not suffice.” Id. 2 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 3 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 4 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 5 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 6 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 7 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 8 experience and common sense.” Id. at 1950. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 9 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 10 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 1951. 11 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 12 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th 13 Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent standards 14 than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 15 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 16 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, 17 a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the 18 action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court 19 will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim without leave to amend because 20 the Complaint cannot be amended to state a claim. 21 III. Complaint 22 Plaintiff alleges two counts for denial of constitutionally-adequate medical care and 23 threat to safety. Plaintiff sues the following current or former employees of EDC: Registered 24 Nurse (RN) Geri Tagliaferri and [First Name Unknown] Rodriguez; Renee Kania; and Phillip 25 Farabaugh. Plaintiff seeks compensatory relief. 26 IV. 27 28 Failure to State a Claim Plaintiff alleges violations of his federal constitutional rights by persons acting under -3- 1 color of federal law pursuant to Bivens. To state a Bivens claim, a plaintiff must allege that 2 persons acting under color of federal law violated his constitutional rights. Martin v. Sias, 3 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 4 1991)). Thus, an action under Bivens is analogous to one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5 § 1983 except for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under 6 Bivens. Id.; but see Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 70-71 (2001); 7 Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S.Ct. 617, 623 (2012). To state a valid constitutional claim, a 8 plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury as a result of the conduct of a particular 9 defendant, and he must allege an affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that 10 defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 11 Plaintiff sues CCA employees for alleged failures to provide constitutionally-adequate 12 medical care and threats to safety. The United States Supreme Court has declined to expand 13 Bivens to include a private right of action against a private entity under contract with the 14 federal government. Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 70-71 (2001). 15 Further, in Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S.Ct. 617, 623 (2012), the Supreme Court declined to 16 expand Bivens to include a private right of action for damages against employees of a private 17 entity under contract with the federal government where state tort law provides an 18 alternative, existing process capable of protecting the constitutional interests at stake. 19 Arizona tort law provides such an alternative for injuries due to the denial of medical care 20 and failure to protect against threats to safety. 21 For the above reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a federal claim against any Defendant in 22 his Complaint. Further, Plaintiff cannot amend his Complaint to state a federal claim against 23 any of the Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint and this action will be summarily 24 dismissed. 25 V. Dismissal without Leave to Amend 26 As discussed above, Plaintiff may not seek damages against any of the Defendants for 27 the claimed Eighth Amendment violations, nor may he amend the Complaint to state a 28 -4- 1 Bivens claim against any CCA employee because state tort law affords an alternative to such 2 claims. Accordingly, the Complaint and this action will be denied. 3 IT IS ORDERED: 4 (1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted. (Doc. 2.) 5 (2) The Complaint and this action are dismissed for failure to state a claim without 6 leave to amend. 7 (3) 8 Plaintiff’s motion to amend the demand for compensatory relief in his Complaint is denied. (Doc. 5.) 9 (4) The Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action. 10 (5) The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 11 § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of this 12 decision would not be taken in good faith. 13 DATED this 26th day of June, 2012. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5-