Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

De La Rosa v. Arpaio

United States District Court, D. Arizona

September 18, 2015

Rodney Cabrera De La Rosa, Plaintiff,
v.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

David G. Campbell United States District Judge

On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff Rodney Cabrera De La Rosa, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a May 15, 2015 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 June 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. In a July 7, 2015 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 July 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 12). The Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and this action.

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, the-defendant-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)).

II. Second Amended Complaint

In his three-count Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names the following Defendants: Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County Jail Detention Officers A5115, A6501, A4860, A8013, A2759, and B1492.

In Count One, Plaintiff claims that while he was confined in the Maricopa County Jail, he was only provided two meals per day. Plaintiff claims Defendant Arpaio approved this practice and that Defendants A5115, A4860, A8013, and A2759 denied his grievances related to the issue and told him that he received 2000-2600 calories per day, which had been approved as nutritionally sufficient. Plaintiff claims the diet was not balanced and compromised his health.

In Count Two, Plaintiff claims temperatures in the jail were “extremely cold.” Specifically, Plaintiff claims that 73.6 degrees is an average room temperature, but that temperatures in the jail were typically between 69 and 70 degrees. Plaintiff claims this threatened his safety by triggering his PTSD.

In Count Three, Plaintiff claims Defendant B1492 questioned him about a grievance and during the questioning was manipulative and lied to Plaintiff. Plaintiff further states, “my confidence on disciplinary proceedings handled by B1492 has been ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.