Bass v. Arizona Motor Vehicle Division

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided August 22, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-02380·Unknown

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 8 9 Johann Alexander Bass, No. CV-24-02380-PHX-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Arizona Motor Vehicle Division, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Johann Alexander Bass, who is proceeding in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, was confined in 17 the Greene Correctional Facility in Coxsackie, New York, when he filed this action, but 18 has since been released. In a January 29, 2025 Order, the Court, among other things, 19 dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint because he had failed to state a claim and gave him an 20 opportunity to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies the Court identified. 21 Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) and, subsequently, a 22 letter (Doc. 12) seeking the status of this action. The Court will grant the letter to the extent 23 this Order provides him with the status of this action,1 dismiss the First Amended 24 Complaint with leave to amend, and give Plaintiff an opportunity to (1) file a second 25 26 1 Although the Court has addressed Plaintiff’s letter, Plaintiff should be aware that it is improper for a party to communicate by mailing a letter directly to the Clerk of Court, 27 the judge, or any court personnel. Any request for action by the Court must be in the form of a motion that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of 28 Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (the Local Rules). Any future letters directed to the Clerk of Court, the judge, or any court personnel will be stricken from the record and returned to Plaintiff. 1 amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the Order and (2) either pay the 2 balance of the filing fee or file a non-prisoner Application to Proceed in District Court 3 Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. 4 I. Filing Fee 5 When the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed 6 the statutory filing fee, the Court cautioned Plaintiff that, in the event of his release, he 7 would be required to pay the balance of the filing fee within 120 days or file a non-prisoner 8 application to proceed in forma pauperis. 9 On June 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address indicating he is no 10 longer in custody. Plaintiff still owes the entire $350.00 filing fee. 11 The Court will give Plaintiff 60 days from the date this Order is filed to either pay 12 the filing fee or file a non-prisoner Application to Proceed in District Court Without 13 Prepaying Fees or Costs, using the form included with this Order. If the Court grants the 14 non-prisoner Application to Proceed, Plaintiff will not be required to pay the filing fee. 15 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 16 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 17 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 18 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 19 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which 20 relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 21 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 22 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 23 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 24 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 25 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 26 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 27 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 28 . . . . 1 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 2 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 3 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 4 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 5 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 6 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 7 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 8 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 9 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 10 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 11 must “continue to construe [self-represented litigant’s] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 12 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a self-represented prisoner] 13 ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. 14 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 15 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 16 facts, a self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before 17 dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 18 banc). The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to state a 19 claim, with leave to amend because it may possibly be amended to state a claim. 20 III. First Amended Complaint 21 In his First Amended Complaint,2 Plaintiff sues two individuals employed by the 22 Arizona Motor Vehicle Division (MVD): Commercial Driver’s License Information 23 System (CDLIS) Administrator/MVD Agent John Doe 1 and Legal Compliance/MVD 24 Agent John Doe 2 in their individual and official capacities. Plaintiff makes the following 25 allegations. 26 . . . .

27 2 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint contains improperly capitalized words. The 28 Court, when quoting the First Amended Complaint, has corrected these without specifically noting them. 1 After being stopped by the South Dakota Department of Public Safety while driving 2 a semi-truck in May 2021, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to “ingestion”; “all charges that referred 3 to driving drunk, high or intoxicated were dismissed”; and he was sentenced to probation. 4 He was told the conviction would not affect his Commercial Driver’s License (CDL). The 5 state court did not enter an order affecting his CDL, and, according to Plaintiff, the 6 conviction “does not constitute . . . a felony in a Commercial Motor Vehicle” under South 7 Dakota law. However, Plaintiff subsequently received a letter from the South Dakota 8 Department of Public Safety stating his CDL “had been withdrawn for committing a felony 9 using a commercial/motor vehicle.” 10 Plaintiff attempted to get an administrative hearing in South Dakota, but he did not 11 receive one.

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

Bass v. Arizona Motor Vehicle Division, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Bass v. Arizona Motor Vehicle Division (Bass v. Arizona Motor Vehicle Division) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dixon v. Love
431 U.S. 105 (Supreme Court, 1977)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Hudson v. Palmer
468 U.S. 517 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Kentucky v. Graham
473 U.S. 159 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
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)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Adrian Miranda v. City of Casa Grande
15 F.4th 1219 (Ninth Circuit, 2021)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Ove v. Gwinn
264 F.3d 817 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)