Correa v. Glendale Police Department

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 19, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-02088
StatusUnknown

This text of Correa v. Glendale Police Department (Correa v. Glendale 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
Correa v. Glendale Police Department, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jeremy Mozes Correa, No. CV 22-02088-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Glendale Police Department, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pro se Plaintiff Jeremy Mozes Correa, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, 16 filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to 17 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed and 18 will dismiss the 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 not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 23 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 24 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 26 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, that fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 7 such 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). 4 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed 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 In his one-count Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, his court costs and 8 fees, and his attorney’s fees from Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone, the 9 Glendale Police Department, the Glendale SWAT Team, and the Glendale K-9 Unit. 10 Plaintiff contends he was subjected to excessive force by Defendant Glendale K-9 11 Unit, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiff alleges that while he was at 12 his friend’s house, he and his friend got into an argument, and his friend called Defendant 13 Glendale Police Department to have Plaintiff removed from the house. He claims his friend 14 advised the 911 dispatcher that Plaintiff was unarmed and in the shower. 15 Plaintiff asserts that when Defendants Glendale SWAT Team and Glendale K-9 16 Unit arrived at the house and instructed everyone to come out, Plaintiff’s friend and the 17 friend’s father came out of the house. Plaintiff claims he got out of the shower, got dressed, 18 and walked to the entrance of the house. He alleges that when he saw an angry, barking 19 canine, he lifted his shirt to show he was unarmed, turned around slowly to further 20 demonstrate he was not armed, and took a few steps forward, with his hands up. Plaintiff 21 contends the canine immediately became “super aggressive” and was trying to break free 22 from its leash. 23 Plaintiff alleges he became “extremely scar[]ed and took one step back,” at which 24 point the canine handler “immediately released the dog on Plaintiff.” Plaintiff claims that 25 the canine’s first bite “took [him] to the ground” and that after the second bite, Plaintiff’s 26 hands “c[a]me down to hold his skin in place” and he inched toward the entrance of the 27 house, screaming that he could not put his hands up. Plaintiff contends the dog bit him 28 three more times before the handler pulled the canine off Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges he was 1 bleeding “all down his left side torso and right index finger” where the canine had bitten 2 him. According to Plaintiff, officers helped him to his feet, handcuffed him, and took him 3 to the hospital, where he received stitches for the bites to his torso and finger. 4 Plaintiff contends the five canine bites were “objectively unreasonable considering 5 the number of officers that were present,” the fact that Plaintiff demonstrated he was 6 unarmed, and the fact that he was “not resistant.” He claims the canine’s deployment was 7 “not in response to a perceived threat” and “a K-9 deployment under the circumstances has 8 no legitimate place in the scheme of law enforcement procedure.” He further alleges that 9 “the deployment of a [‘]bite and hold[’] was purely an intentional infliction of a high level 10 of pain, serious injury, unnecessary pain and suffering, and wretched psychological stress.” 11 Plaintiff indicates he “plans on respectfully requesting . . . that [he] be granted the 12 ability to amend his original complaint so[] that he can identify all named defendants . . .

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

Related

Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
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)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Russell Marcilis, II v. Township of Redford
693 F.3d 589 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)
Lanman v. Hinson
529 F.3d 673 (Sixth Circuit, 2008)
Gotbaum Ex Rel. Gotbaum v. City of Phoenix
617 F. Supp. 2d 878 (D. Arizona, 2008)
Braillard v. Maricopa County
232 P.3d 1263 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2010)
Sadoski v. Mosley
435 F.3d 1076 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Correa v. Glendale Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/correa-v-glendale-police-department-azd-2023.