Cooper v. Unknown Party

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided July 11, 2022·No. 2:22-cv-00231·Unknown

Opinion

1 SC 2 WO 3 4 5 8 9 Morris Cooper, No. CV 22-00231-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 John Doe Officer, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Morris Cooper, who is confined in the Atlantic County Justice Facility, 16 New Jersey,1 filed a “Form to be Used by a Prisoner in Filing a Complaint Under the Civil 17 Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983” (“Complaint”) (Doc. 1)2 and a New Jersey Application to 18 Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (Doc. 2). The Court denied Plaintiff’s 19 Application to Proceed with leave to file a new Application using this Court’s approved 20 form and dismissed the Complaint with leave to file an amended complaint using this 21 Court’s approved form (Doc. 5). Plaintiff filed a new Application to Proceed In Forma 22 Pauperis and a First Amended Complaint. In an April 15, 2022 Order, the Court granted 23 Plaintiff’s Application but dismissed the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a 24 claim with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days (Doc. 10). Plaintiff has filed 25

26 1 The Complaint’s caption is for the United States District Court for the District of 27 New Jersey, but the events at issue occurred in Maricopa County, Arizona, and the Defendants are Arizona police officers. 28 2 The citation refers to the document and page number generated by the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system. 1 a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 12). The Court will dismiss the Second Amended 2 Complaint with leave to amend. 3 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 4 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 5 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 7 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 8 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 9 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 10 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 11 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 12 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 13 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 14 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 15 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 16 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 17 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 18 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 19 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 21 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 22 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 23 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 24 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 25 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 26 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 27 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 28 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 1 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 2 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 3 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 4 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 5 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 6 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 7 to amend. 8 II. Second Amended Complaint 9 In his one-count Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a claim for false arrest. Plaintiff sues 10 Officer John Doe 1 and Detective John Doe 2. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive 11 relief. Plaintiff alleges the following facts: 12 On December 27, 2020, a Sunday, Plaintiff was arrested for arson involving a fire 13 in the home of his child’s mother (hereafter, “Mother”). The home had surveillance 14 cameras “surrounding the outside of the residence.” (Doc. 12 at 4.) Mother falsely reported 15 that Plaintiff had tried to set fire to the home from the outside and while she was inside the 16 house. A fire investigator who came to the scene notified “officers” that the fire had started 17 inside the home. (Id.) Mother informed “the officers” of Plaintiff’s whereabouts and he 18 was arrested. (Id.) Before arresting Plaintiff, “[t]he officers” reviewed surveillance 19 footage without seeing Plaintiff “committing any crime,” but nevertheless arrested Plaintiff 20 based on Mother’s report that Plaintiff had started the fire from outside the home. (Id.) 21 Plaintiff was held for more than a week before the criminal charges against him were 22 dismissed. 23 At the time of his arrest, Plaintiff had outstanding arrest warrants in Texas under an 24 alias; the officers were unaware of the warrants when they arrested Plaintiff. Arizona 25 authorities learned of the outstanding Texas warrants only after Plaintiff’s fingerprints were 26 entered into the electronic system following his arrest. 27 Plaintiff claims that despite Mother’s claim that Plaintiff had started the fire from 28 outside the home, the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him because Plaintiff was not 1 viewed on the surveillance footage “committing arson” outside the home and a fire 2 investigator determined that the fire started inside the home. (Id. at 5.) 3 Background 4 According to information available on-line, Plaintiff was charged in two cases in 5 Maricopa County Superior Court, CR 2020-004045 and CR 2020-04049.3 On January 6, 6 2021, a “Fugitive from Justice Initial Hearing” was held in both cases.4 Plaintiff refused 7 to waive extradition at that hearing. On January 27, 2021, a “Fugitive from Justice 30 day 8 Hearing/Waiver of Extradition” hearing was held, i.e., 30 days after his arrest.5 After being 9 informed of the two outstanding Texas warrants, and Texas’ willingness to seek Plaintiff’s 10 extradition, Plaintiff signed a waiver of extradition, and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s 11 Office was ordered to inform Texas authorities. The court gave Texas authorities 30 days 12 from the date of notification to extradite Plaintiff. 13 III. Failure to State a Claim 14 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 15 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 16 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens,

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

Cooper v. Unknown Party, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Cooper v. Unknown Party (Cooper v. Unknown Party) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gerstein v. Pugh
420 U.S. 103 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Kalina v. Fletcher
522 U.S. 118 (Supreme Court, 1997)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Wallace v. Kato
127 S. Ct. 1091 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Nile Smith
790 F.2d 789 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)
Brian Barlow v. Officer George Ground, I.D. 9129
943 F.2d 1132 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
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)
Respublica v. Doan
1 U.S. 86 (Supreme Court, 1784)
Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park
159 F.3d 374 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)