Distel v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMarch 14, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-02286
StatusUnknown

This text of Distel v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (Distel v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office) 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
Distel v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 NH 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Marc David Distel, No. CV-24-02286-PHX-JAT (ASB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Marc David Distel, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, has filed a 16 pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), an Application to 17 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2), and a Motion for Speedy Trial (Doc. 5). The Court 18 will grant the Application to Proceed, deny the Motion for Speedy Trial, and dismiss the 19 Complaint with leave to amend. 20 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 21 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $6.82. The remainder of 24 the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 25 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 26 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 27 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 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, fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 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). The 4 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 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 asserts a First Amendment claim relating to 8 his mail. Plaintiff names as Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and Officer 9 B0711. In his request for relief, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. 10 In Count One, Plaintiff claims that on July 3, 2024, he submitted “hand-written 11 legal research” to be mailed to his attorney, Alfonso Castillo. “[An] ILS form was attached 12 to the documents as [a] cover letter and was accepted and signed for by [Defendant Officer 13 B0711].” After two weeks, Plaintiff had not received an “[I]LS receipt verifying the 14 documents had been sent” and he submitted a “legal request” to check the status of the 15 documents. “ILS responded ‘ILS cannot locate please resend.’” On August 4, 2024, 16 Plaintiff submitted a grievance “asking [Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office] to 17 take responsibility.” 18 Plaintiff alleges “[t]he Sheriff’s department refused to . . . take responsibility for 19 losing the documents they accepted [and] signed for” and “[t]he legal service at Lower 20 Buckeye Jail” also refused to take responsibility. Plaintiff alleges “they know a detention 21 officer accepted [and] signed for the documents[,] [then] they [disappeared].” He asserts 22 the jail refuses to process a grievance regarding his lost mail and the lost documents were 23 “imperative” to his legal defense in his criminal manslaughter case. He claims he lost 24 “hundreds of hours worth of law library research[…]” Plaintiff asserts he has carbon 25 copies of the “ILS” cover letter and ILS response directing him to resend the documents. 26 IV. Failure to State a Claim 27 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 28 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 1 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 3 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 4 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 5 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 6 72, 377 (1976). 7 A. Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office 8 The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper defendant because it is a “non- 9 jural entity.” Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Braillard 10 v. Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)). In Arizona, the 11 responsibility of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon the sheriff. 12 See Ariz.

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)
Procunier v. Martinez
416 U.S. 396 (Supreme Court, 1974)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Turner v. Safley
482 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court, 1987)
City of Dallas v. Stanglin
490 U.S. 19 (Supreme Court, 1989)
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 L. Martin v. Sheriff Richard Tyson
845 F.2d 1451 (Seventh Circuit, 1988)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Earnest Ray Walker v. Navarro County Jail
4 F.3d 410 (Fifth Circuit, 1993)
John Witherow v. Marvin Paff
52 F.3d 264 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
Barrett v. Belleque
544 F.3d 1060 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Braillard v. Maricopa County
232 P.3d 1263 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Distel v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/distel-v-maricopa-county-sheriffs-office-azd-2025.