Andre Michael Leteve v. Ryan Thornell, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona grants Andre Michael Leteve leave to file a First Amended Complaint and conducts statutory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court dismisses certain individual-capacity claims, permits an official-capacity policy-or-custom claim against Sergeant Tuccino to proceed, and directs specified defendants to answer surviving claims. The order also addresses service of process and related procedural requirements.

Holdings

1. Leave to file the first amended complaint was granted because Plaintiff was entitled to amend as a matter of course or, alternatively, because the court's prior order contemplated amendment.
2. Plaintiff failed to state Fourth Amendment or procedural due process claims based on the seizure, destruction, or loss of the legal-materials update; those individual-capacity claims were dismissed with prejudice.
3. Plaintiff failed to state an access-to-the-courts claim because he did not allege an actual injury or the loss of a nonfrivolous or arguable underlying legal claim.
4. Plaintiff failed to state an individual-capacity First Amendment claim based on the alleged mishandling of the legal-materials update; the claim was dismissed without prejudice.
5. Plaintiff failed to state an individual-capacity § 1983 claim against Thornell because the claim was based solely on respondeat superior.
6. Liberally construed, the amended complaint stated an official-capacity policy-or-custom claim against Tuccino concerning an alleged ASPC-Tucson custom of not following ADCRR prison-mail policy, so Tuccino was required to answer Count One in his official capacity only.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to file the first amended complaint.
2. Whether Count One stated individual-capacity Fourth Amendment, due process, access-to-the-courts, or First Amendment claims concerning the seizure or non-delivery of a prisoner's legal-materials update.
3. Whether Plaintiff stated an individual-capacity § 1983 claim against supervisory defendant Ryan Thornell.
4. Whether Plaintiff stated an official-capacity policy-or-custom claim against Mario Tuccino sufficient to require an answer.
5. Whether the court's prior screening conclusions remained applicable to unchanged Counts Two and Three of the amended complaint.

Disposition

other