On March 23, 2011, Plaintiff Danuel Correa, who is confined in the Yuma County Detention Center, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and a deficient Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a March 25, 2011 Order, the Court denied the deficient Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the filing fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
On April 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 6). The Court will grant the second Application to Proceed and will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend.
I. Second Application to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis and Filing
Plaintiff's second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be
granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing
fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an
initial partial filing fee of $25.93. The remainder of the fee will be
collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month's income
each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(2). The Court will
enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government agency
to collect and forward
the fees according to the statutory formula.
II. 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, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (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 1950. 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 1951.
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
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Id. (quoting Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 2 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 3 If
the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation
of other facts, 4 a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to
amend a complaint before dismissal of the 5 action. See Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court 6
should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This
type of advice "would 7 undermine district judges' role as impartial
decisionmakers." Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 8 231 (2004); see also
Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to decide whether the court
was 9 required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff's
Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, with leave
to amend because the Complaint may possibly be saved by
In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendant Yuma City Police Department. He alleges that Defendant "blew an explosive charge in the face of the victim" and that this constitutes an aggravated assault on Plaintiff (Count One) and endangerment (Count Two), in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-1204 and 3-1201, respectively. In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
IV. Failure to State a Claim
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint ...