Crenshaw v. Penzone

1 MDR WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Carleen Crenshaw, No. CV 22-01250-PHX-DGC (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, v. ORDER Paul Penzone, 13 Defendant.

15 Pro se Plaintiff Carleen Crenshaw, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, has filed a civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1)1 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed and will dismiss this action.

19 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 20 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 21 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 not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. Plaintiff has not alleged a jurisdictional basis for this lawsuit. For purposes of this Order, the Court will construe her claim as filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action against persons acting under color of state law who have violated rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and federal law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F.3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995).

1 § 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.

3 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 4 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).

10 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. 16 “[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.

25 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 2 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)).

3 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

6 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend because the defects cannot be corrected.

8 III. Complaint 9 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the Court must dismiss a case proceeding in forma pauperis if the court determines that the action or complaint is “frivolous.” When evaluating claims under this standard, the Court “is not bound, as it usually is when making a determination based solely on the pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). “[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are ‘clearly baseless,’ a category encompassing allegations that are ‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional.’” Id. at 32-33 (citations omitted). “[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Id. at 33.

18 In her one-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone seeking immediate release from jail and an order requiring Defendant Penzone to “grant [her] access to control (SIMS) to change codes.” Plaintiff claims she is “the Senior CEO Executive Owner of the State of Arizona and Senior CEO Executive Owner of the State of Arizona Codes,” and therefore she “can[’]t be held in any Agency []or Departments within the State of Arizona because [she is] the true owner of the State of Arizona.” She appears to contend that President Eisenhower and Justice O’Connor issued orders “for [her] to just exercise [her] title.” Plaintiff also alleges the “[g]rievance level has exceeded its timeframe, on the 6th level” and the “Bureau Hearing Unit has not respond[ed ]or abide[d] by resolution [to her] direct orders to release [her] immediately and allow [her] access to | control unit (SIMS) to change codes needed for the emecity (sic) of [her] responsibility to 2| the State of Arizona... which [she] own[s].”

3 Plaintiff's claim is factually frivolous. Drawing on its judicial experience and 4} common sense, the Court also finds Plaintiff's allegations implausible. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. 5 | at 678. The Court will dismiss the Complaint and this action without leave to amend.

6 IT IS ORDERED: 7 (1) Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted.

8 (2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government 9) agency, Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is not assessed an initial partial filing fee.

11 (3) |The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

13 (4) 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).

15 (5) 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 certifies that an appeal would not be taken | in good faith because there is no arguable factual or legal basis for an appeal.

19 Dated this 22nd day of August, 2022. aur 6 Cour 33 . David G. Campbell Senior United States District Judge