Bryant v. Phoenix Police Department

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMarch 22, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-00313
StatusUnknown

This text of Bryant v. Phoenix Police Department (Bryant v. Phoenix Police Department) 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. Phoenix Police Department, (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 23-00313-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Phoenix Police Department, et al., 13 Defendants.

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

25 shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that– (A) the 26 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 27 (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 28 relief. 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 2 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 3 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 4 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 5 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 6 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 7 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 8 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 9 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 10 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 11 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 12 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 13 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 14 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 15 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 16 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 17 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 18 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 19 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 20 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 21 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 22 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 23 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 24 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 25 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 26 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 27 III. Complaint 28 In his Complaint, Plaintiff names the Phoenix Police Department (PPD), the City of 1 Phoenix, and City of Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego as Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that he 2 was searched and arrested by arrested by PPD without probable cause, for which he seeks 3 monetary relief. 4 IV. Failure to State a Claim 5 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 6 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 7 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 8 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 9 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 10 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 11 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 12 72, 377 (1976). 13 As an initial matter, Plaintiff makes no allegations against Gallego or the City of 14 Phoenix. Accordingly, they will be dismissed. 15 Further, the Phoenix Police Department is not a proper Defendant. Although 16 municipalities, such as cities and counties, are included among those “persons” who may 17 be sued under § 1983, Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 18 690 (1978), the Phoenix Police Department is a subpart of the City of Phoenix, not a 19 separate entity for purposes of suit. Gotbaum v. City of Phoenix, 617 F. Supp. 2d 878, 886 20 (D. Ariz. 2008); see Braillard v. Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 21 2010) (county sheriff’s office is a nonjural entity); see also Vincente v. City of Prescott, 22 2012 WL 1438695 (D. Ariz. 2012) (city fire department is a nonjural entity); Wilson v. 23 Yavapai Cnty., 2012 WL 1067959 (D. Ariz. 2012) (county sheriff’s office and county 24 attorney’s office are nonjural entities). Accordingly, the Phoenix Police Department will 25 be dismissed as a Defendant. 26 Even if the Court construed Plaintiff as suing the City of Phoenix, he still fails to 27 state a claim. A municipality may not be sued solely because an injury was inflicted by its 28 employees or agents. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). 1 The actions of individuals may support municipal liability only if the employees were 2 acting pursuant to an official policy or custom of the municipality. Botello v. Gammick, 3 413 F.3d 971, 978-79 (9th Cir. 2005). A § 1983 claim against a municipal defendant 4 “cannot succeed as a matter of law” unless a plaintiff: (1) alleges that the municipal 5 defendant maintains a policy or custom pertinent to the plaintiff’ s alleged injury; and (2) 6 explains how such policy or custom caused the plaintiff’ s injury. Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 7 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal of a municipal defendant pursuant to 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)).

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

Related

Green v. Biddle
21 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1823)
Terry v. Ohio
392 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1968)
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)
Florida v. Bostick
501 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court, 1991)
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)
Liberal v. Estrada
632 F.3d 1064 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Efrain Becerra-Garcia
397 F.3d 1167 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Ramirez v. City of Buena Park
560 F.3d 1012 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Gotbaum Ex Rel. Gotbaum v. City of Phoenix
617 F. Supp. 2d 878 (D. Arizona, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bryant v. Phoenix Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-phoenix-police-department-azd-2023.