Hess 353733 v. Dannels

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedNovember 20, 2024
Docket4:24-cv-00428
StatusUnknown

This text of Hess 353733 v. Dannels (Hess 353733 v. Dannels) 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
Hess 353733 v. Dannels, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 WO ASH 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Greg Hess, No. CV-24-00428-TUC-SHR 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Mark Dannels, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On or about June 12, 2024, Plaintiff Greg Hess, who is confined in the Arizona State 16 Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se Complaint in Cochise County Superior Court 17 against Defendants Mark Dannels, Cochise County, and the State of Arizona. Defendants 18 Dannels and Cochise County waived service on August 9, 2024. (Doc. 1-3 at 12–21.) On 19 August 26, 2024, Defendants timely removed the matter to this Court and paid the filing 20 fees. Plaintiff has subsequently filed an Objection to removal (Doc. 8), a Motion requesting 21 an extension of time to serve Defendants (Doc. 5), and a Motion requesting that Defendants 22 resend copies of certain filings (Doc. 13). The Court will deny the motions and dismiss 23 the Complaint with leave to amend. 24 I. Removal 25 A defendant may remove any civil action brought in state court over which the 26 federal court would have original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). That is, a civil action 27 that could have originally been brought in federal court may be removed from state to 28 federal court. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). A federal court has 1 original jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of 2 the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 3 Plaintiff objects to removal, asserting “this case is purely a state matter.” (Doc. 8 at 4 1–2). However, in his Complaint, and as he recognizes in his Objection, Plaintiff identified 5 as bases for relief—among other, non-federal causes of action—the Fourteenth 6 Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the 7 Court finds Defendants properly interpreted Plaintiff’s Complaint as raising federal causes 8 of action and thus properly removed the matter to this Court. Further, the case was timely 9 removed, and all served Defendants indicate they consent to removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). 10 Accordingly, the Court will accept jurisdiction over this matter. 11 II. 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). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 15 has raised legally frivolous or malicious claims, fails to state a claim upon which relief may 16 be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 17 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 18 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 19 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 20 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 21 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 22 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 23 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 24 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 25 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 26 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 27 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 28 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 1 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 2 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 3 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 4 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 5 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 6 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 7 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 8 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 9 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 10 If the Court determines a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a 11 pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the 12 action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court 13 will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because it could 14 potentially be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 15 III. Complaint 16 In his Complaint, Plaintiff names Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels,1 Cochise 17 County, and the State of Arizona as Defendants. Plaintiff alleges:

18 On July 10, 2023, I notified the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office of my desire to file a criminal complaint. On September 22, 2023, I was notified in writing 19 by Deputy Joel Chase, Badge #2498, Pinal County Sheriff’s Office, that my complaint (#230831093) was transferred to Cochise County Sheriff’s Office. 20 On October 10, 2023, I contacted Sheriff Dannels to request an update. I have requested a legal call through ADCRR on two separate occasions, but 21 my requests have been refused by Sheriff Dannels each time. On March 11, 2024, I sent Sheriff Dannels, the Board of Supervisors, and the Arizona 22 Attorney General’s Office a “Notice of Claim” and “Written Demand.” 23 As relief, Plaintiff seeks “an immediate investigation (via issuance of writ of 24 mandamus) into violations of A.R.S. § 13-1304 and 13-1305, by Plaintiff’s ex-wife,” “legal 25 costs and expenses,” “a copy of the investigation official report and all evidence collected,” 26 and “all additional damages the Court deems prudent.” 27 . . . .

28 1 Dannels is named in his official capacity. 1 IV. Failure to State a Claim 2 Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court is unable to deduce the nature of any 3 claim Plaintiff may be attempting to make. Although pro se pleadings are liberally 4 construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972), conclusory and vague 5 allegations will not support a cause of action, Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 6 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal interpretation of a civil rights 7 complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim not initially pled. Id.

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

Related

Bank of the United States v. Deveaux
9 U.S. 61 (Supreme Court, 1809)
American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton
26 U.S. 511 (Supreme Court, 1828)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams
482 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1987)
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)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Taylor v. List
880 F.2d 1040 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc.
931 F.2d 1320 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hess 353733 v. Dannels, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hess-353733-v-dannels-azd-2024.