Amber Beggs v. Gerard A. Sheridan, et al.

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided July 31, 2026·No. 2:26-cv-01044·Unknown

Opinion

1 BGN 2 WO 3 4 5 8 9 Amber Beggs, No. CV-26-01044-PHX-JAT (MTM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Gerard A. Sheridan, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Amber Beggs, who is confined in the Estrella Jail, has filed a pro se civil 16 rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In 17 Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the Application to proceed and dismiss the 18 Complaint with leave to amend. 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. 22 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $38.01. The remainder 23 of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 24 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 26 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 2 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 3 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 5 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 8 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 9 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 10 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 11 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 12 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 13 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 14 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 15 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 16 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 17 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 18 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 19 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 20 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 21 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 22 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 23 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 24 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 25 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 26 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 27 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 1 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 3 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 4 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because it may 5 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 Plaintiff’s single-count Complaint claims a violation of the First and Fourteenth 8 Amendments, in addition to state-law negligence. Plaintiff names Gerard A. Sheridan, 9 Officer Quiz-Salcido, and Does 1-20 as Defendants. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief and 10 disciplinary action against Defendant Quiz-Salcido.1 11 Plaintiff alleges that on January 8, 2026, Defendant Quiz-Salcido “utilized 12 excessive force” when he grabbed Plaintiff’s arm and “pulled [her] down to the ground 13 from a top bunk” causing a fracture in her left arm. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff states she went 14 to “medical” and that she has to wear an “arm cast and arm brace.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims 15 she “did not disobey any order” by Defendant Quiz-Salcido and that the “[sergeant] would 16 not allow [her] to file a [g]rievance.” (Id.) For her injuries, Plaintiff claims a “left arm 17 fracture, several bruises, nightmares, depression, sweats, sadness” and a fear of officers. 18 (Id.) 19 IV. Failure to State a Claim 20 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 21 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived her of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 22 (4) caused her damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 23 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 24 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that she suffered a specific injury 25 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and she must allege an affirmative link

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Amber Beggs v. Gerard A. Sheridan, et al., (D. Ariz. 2026).

Amber Beggs v. Gerard A. Sheridan, et al. (Amber Beggs v. Gerard A. Sheridan, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The Emily and the Caroline
22 U.S. 381 (Supreme Court, 1824)
Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill
484 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Valandingham v. Bojorquez
866 F.2d 1135 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Taylor v. List
880 F.2d 1040 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell
981 F.2d 1062 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Buckley v. Barlow
997 F.2d 494 (Eighth Circuit, 1993)
Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada
290 F.3d 1175 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)