Bryant v. Arizona Department of Public Safety

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMarch 22, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-00312
StatusUnknown

This text of Bryant v. Arizona Department of Public Safety (Bryant v. Arizona Department of Public Safety) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bryant v. Arizona Department of Public Safety, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Opinion

1 ASH 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Kenneth Bryant, No. CV 23-00312-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Arizona Department of Public Safety, et 13 al., 14 Defendants.

15 16 Plaintiff Kenneth Bryant, who is not in custody, has filed a pro se civil rights 17 Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed 18 Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint. 19 I. Application to Proceed 20 Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed indicates that he lacks funds to pay for this action. 21 Accordingly, the Court will grant the Application to Proceed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 22 Plaintiff is not required to pay the filing fees for this action. 23 II. Statutory Screening of In Forma Pauperis Actions 24 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), in a case in which a plaintiff has been granted 25 in forma pauperis status, the Court

26 shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that– (A) the 27 allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal– (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or 28 (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 1 2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 3 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 4 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 5 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 6 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 7 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 9 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 10 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 11 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 12 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 13 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 14 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 15 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 16 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 17 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 18 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 19 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 20 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 21 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 22 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 23 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 24 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 25 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 26 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 27 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 28 . . . . 1 III. Complaint 2 In his Complaint, Plaintiff names Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, the 3 Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS), and the Arizona Department of Child Safety 4 (DCS) as Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that he was improperly arrested by DPS and his 5 minor son (who was in the car when Plaintiff was arrested) was placed with DCS. Plaintiff 6 seeks monetary relief. 7 IV. Failure to State a Claim 8 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 9 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 10 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 11 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 12 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 13 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 14 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 15 72, 377 (1976). 16 As an initial matter, Plaintiff makes no allegations against Mayes. Accordingly, she 17 will be dismissed. 18 Further, under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a 19 state or state agency may not be sued in federal court without its consent. Pennhurst State 20 School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 21 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “Furthermore, a state is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 22 1983.” Hale v. State of Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc). “This 23 limitation on § 1983 also extends to ‘arms of the State,’” such as DPS and DCS. Id. 24 (citation omitted); see also Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th 25 Cir. 1991). Accordingly, DPS and DCS will be dismissed. Because Plaintiff has failed to 26 state a claim against any named Defendant, the Complaint will be dismissed. 27 V. Leave to Amend 28 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint to cure the 1 deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form 2 to use for filing a first amended complaint.1 3 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 4 Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 5 entirety and may not incorporate any part of the original Complaint by reference. Plaintiff 6 may include only one claim per count. 7 A first amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 8 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 9 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat the original Complaint 10 as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the 11 original Complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without prejudice 12 is waived if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey v.

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

Related

Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984)
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)
Gasho v. United States
39 F.3d 1420 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Taylor v. List
880 F.2d 1040 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc.
931 F.2d 1320 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bryant v. Arizona Department of Public Safety, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-arizona-department-of-public-safety-azd-2023.