Lamm v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedOctober 6, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-03508
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Nitachia Lamm, No. CV-25-03508-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, 13 Defendant.

15 Plaintiff Nitachia Lamm, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, has filed a pro 16 se 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 dismiss the Complaint with leave to 18 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 assess an initial partial filing fee of $5.00. The remainder of 23 the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 24 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 26 government 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, 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 her single-count Complaint, Plaintiff names the Maricopa County Sheriff’s 8 Office as the sole Defendant. Plaintiff asserts a claim regarding her conditions of 9 confinement in the Estrella Jail. She seeks monetary relief. 10 Plaintiff alleges, “24 hours lockdown breathing black-mold within HVAC system 11 the showers and toilet facilities common housing unit untreated.” As her injury, Plaintiff 12 claims she feels an overall sense of illness, shortness of breath, and excessive fatigue, 13 accompanied by headaches and “coughing blood.” 14 IV. Failure to State a Claim 15 The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper defendant because it is a “non- 16 jural entity.” Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Braillard 17 v. Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)). In Arizona, the 18 responsibility of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon the sheriff. 19 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 11-441(A)(5), 31-101. A sheriff’s office is simply an administrative 20 creation of the county sheriff to allow him to carry out his statutory duties and is not a 21 “person” amenable to suit pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss 22 Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. 23 Because Plaintiff has not named a proper Defendant, the Court will dismiss the 24 Complaint. 25 V. Leave to Amend 26 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint to cure the 27 deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form 28 to use for filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, 1 the Court may strike the amended complaint and dismiss this action without further notice 2 to Plaintiff. 3 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 4 Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 5 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 6 Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 7 A first amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 8 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 9 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat the original Complaint 10 as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the 11 original Complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without prejudice 12 is waived if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 13 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

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)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Braillard v. Maricopa County
232 P.3d 1263 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2010)
Manuel Ortega Melendres v. Joseph Arpaio
784 F.3d 1254 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Jonathon Castro v. County of Los Angeles
833 F.3d 1060 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Mary Gordon v. County of Orange
888 F.3d 1118 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)
Alvarez-Machain v. United States
107 F.3d 696 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

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