Kauffman 360639 v. Department of Child Safety

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedAugust 29, 2023
Docket3:23-cv-08128
StatusUnknown

This text of Kauffman 360639 v. Department of Child Safety (Kauffman 360639 v. Department of Child Safety) 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
Kauffman 360639 v. Department of Child Safety, (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 Luke Zion Yochai-Adams-Trimmer, No. CV-23-08128-PCT-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 D.C.S., et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pro se Plaintiff Luke Zion Yochai-Adams-Trimmer, who is also known as Zion Z. 16 Kauffman, is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman. Initially, he filed a 17 civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He then filed a First Amended 18 Complaint (Doc. 5) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 6). The Court 19 will grant the Application to Proceed and will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with 20 leave to amend. 21 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 22 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 23 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 25 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 26 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 28 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 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 First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 5 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 6 to amend. 7 III. First Amended Complaint 8 A first amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 9 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 10 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court treats the original Complaint as 11 nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the original 12 Complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without prejudice is waived 13 if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 14 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Thus, the Court will consider only those claims raised in 15 the First Amended Complaint against those Defendants named in the First Amended 16 Complaint. 17 In his three-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants the 18 State of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Child Safety (DCS), the Tempe Police 19 Department, and Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Cassie B. Woo. He seeks 20 monetary damages, for Defendant DCS to “dismiss the case,” and for the State of Arizona 21 to “do the same” and to “fix [his] kids[’] birth papers w[ith his] real[] legal name.” 22 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges he was subjected to excessive force and a threat to 23 his safety, in violation of his First through Twelfth Amendment rights. He claims a “DCS 24 worker” did not show him her DCS identification and he told her, “get out of here[,] you 25 are not coming in.” Plaintiff asserts the DCS worker pushed him out of the way, hit him, 26 and told his children, “don[’]t you want a new family that can give you anything that you 27 want.” He contends he told the DCS worker to leave or he would force her to leave. 28 Plaintiff alleges he “ma[d]e her leave.” He alleges the DCS worker called the Tempe Police 1 Department and, before the police arrived, the DCS worker told Plaintiff that “she will 2 make sure it is a cold day in hell [before Plaintiff will] get [his] kids back” and that 3 Plaintiff’s ex-wife and her family are “paying off D.C.S. [and] the Judge to keep [his] kids 4 out of [his] home.” Plaintiff claims his ex-wife, her family, and Defendants Tempe Police 5 Department, DCS, and Woo are prejudiced because he is Jewish and because of “our way 6 of life.” He also asserts his children are being raped and hurt by the families with whom 7 they are living. Plaintiff contends “[a]ll of this is unlawful [and] illegal,” he has not had a 8 fair hearing, there is a “conflict of interest,” and there was no affidavit or warrant. He 9 alleges he and his children have “PTSD, stress, TBI, pain, depression, anxiety, SMI, [and] 10 Asperger[s].” 11 In Count Two, Plaintiff claims a violation of his right to the free exercise of his 12 religion.

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)
Bradley v. Fisher
80 U.S. 335 (Supreme Court, 1872)
Pierson v. Ray
386 U.S. 547 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Stump v. Sparkman
435 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kauffman 360639 v. Department of Child Safety, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kauffman-360639-v-department-of-child-safety-azd-2023.