Dendulk v. Mesa, City of

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedOctober 10, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-02908
StatusUnknown

This text of Dendulk v. Mesa, City of (Dendulk v. Mesa, City of) 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
Dendulk v. Mesa, City of, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 KM 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jason Dendulk, No. CV-25-02908-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 City of Mesa, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 I. Procedural History 16 On July 15, 2025, Plaintiff Jason Dendulk, who is confined in a Maricopa County 17 Jail, filed a Complaint (Doc. 1-1 at 2-8)1 in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, 18 Arizona, against the City of Mesa, John Giles, Tara Klahn, Christopher J. Bradley, C. Dirk, 19 S. Perez Cortes, J. Lopez, and Unknown Shaw. On August 13, 2025, Defendants Lopez, 20 Dirk, Perez Cortes, City of Mesa, and Shaw filed a Notice of Removal and removed the 21 case to this Court. On August 20, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion for More Definite 22 Statement (Doc. 3). On September 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File First 23 Amended Complaint (Doc. 4). 24 The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend and deny as moot 25 Defendants’ Motion for More Definite Statement and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File 26 First Amended Complaint. 27

28 1 The citation refers to the document and page number generated by the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system. 1 II. Removal 2 A state court defendant may remove to federal court any civil action brought in the 3 state court over which the federal district courts would have original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1441(a). In his Complaint, Plaintiff raises claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court’s 5 jurisdiction extends to such claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (a federal court has original 6 jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 7 United States”). The Notice of Removal was filed within 30 days of Defendants Lopez, 8 Dirk, Perez Cortes, City of Mesa, and Shaw being served, and the Removing Defendants 9 indicate that all properly served Defendants consent to the removal. It therefore appears 10 this case was timely and properly removed. 11 III. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 12 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 13 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 14 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). After screening is complete, the Court will notify the parties if an 15 answer to the Complaint or any subsequently filed amended complaint is required. 16 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims 17 that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 18 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the 20 allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint 21 before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) 22 (en banc). 23 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4 requires in part that “[a]ll complaints . . . by 24 incarcerated persons must be signed and legibly written or typewritten on forms approved 25 by the Court and in accordance with the instructions provided with the forms.” Plaintiff’s 26 Complaint is not on the court-approved form. The Court may, in its discretion, forgo the 27 requirement that a plaintiff use a court-approved form. See LRCiv 3.4. The Court will 28 require use of the court-approved form because Plaintiff’s Complaint substantially differs 1 from the court-approved form. Thus, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without 2 prejudice and with leave to amend, in order for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on a 3 court-approved form. 4 Because the Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend, the Court will 5 deny as moot Defendants’ Motion for More Definite Statement and Plaintiff’s Motion for 6 Leave to File First Amended Complaint. 7 IV. Leave to Amend 8 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint on a court-approved 9 form. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first 10 amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike 11 the amended complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 12 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 13 Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 14 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 15 Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 16 A first amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 17 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 18 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat the original Complaint 19 as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the 20 original Complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without prejudice 21 is waived if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 22 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 23 If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements 24 telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name 25 of the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to 26 do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of 27 Plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of 28 that Defendant’s conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 1 Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he names as a Defendant. If 2 Plaintiff fails to affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific 3 injury suffered by Plaintiff, the allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for 4 failure to state a claim. Conclusory allegations that a Defendant or group of 5 Defendants has violated a constitutional right are not acceptable and will be 6 dismissed. 7 Plaintiff should note that the use of excessive force by police officers during an 8 arrest can violate the arrestee’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable 9 seizures. See White by White v. Pierce County, 797 F.2d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 1986). The 10 Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the use of reasonable force. Tatum v. City & County 11 of S.F., 441 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2006). Whether the force was excessive depends on 12 “whether the officers’ actions [were] ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and 13 circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” 14 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989); Tatum, 441 F.3d at 1095; Lolli v. County of 15 Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 415 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court must balance the nature and quality 16 of the intrusion against the countervailing governmental interests at stake. Graham, 490 17 U.S. at 396; Lolli, 351 F.3d at 415.

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)
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
American Casualty Co. v. Baker
22 F.3d 880 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Dendulk v. Mesa, City of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dendulk-v-mesa-city-of-azd-2025.