Loren Christopher Tarabochia v. Yavapai County Sheriff's Department, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJune 5, 2026
Docket3:26-cv-08041
StatusUnknown

This text of Loren Christopher Tarabochia v. Yavapai County Sheriff's Department, et al. (Loren Christopher Tarabochia v. Yavapai County Sheriff's Department, et al.) 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
Loren Christopher Tarabochia v. Yavapai County Sheriff's Department, et al., (D. Ariz. 2026).

Opinion

1 KEB 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Loren Christopher Tarabochia, No. CV-26-08041-PCT-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Yavapai County Sheriff's Department, et 13 al., 14 Defendants.

15 16 Plaintiff Loren Christopher Tarabochia, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison- 17 Kingman, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) 18 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the 19 Application to Proceed and dismiss the 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 not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 24 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 25 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 27 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 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4 requires in part that “[a]ll complaints and 9 applications to proceed in forma pauperis by incarcerated persons shall be signed and 10 legibly written or typewritten on forms approved by the Court and in accordance with the 11 instructions provided with the forms.” Plaintiff’s Complaint is not on a court-approved 12 form as required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4. Plaintiff’s Complaint will therefore 13 be dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend, in order for Plaintiff to file an 14 amended complaint on a court-approved form. 15 III. Leave to Amend 16 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint on a court-approved 17 form. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first 18 amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike 19 the amended complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 20 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 21 Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 22 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 23 Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 24 A first amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 25 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 26 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat the original Complaint 27 as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the 28 original Complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without prejudice 1 is waived if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 2 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 3 If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements 4 telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name 5 of the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to 6 do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of 7 Plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of 8 that Defendant’s conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 9 Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he names as a Defendant. If 10 Plaintiff fails to affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific 11 injury suffered by Plaintiff, the allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for 12 failure to state a claim. Conclusory allegations that a Defendant or group of 13 Defendants has violated a constitutional right are not acceptable and will be 14 dismissed. 15 Plaintiff should be aware that to state a First Amendment retaliation claim, a 16 plaintiff must allege that “(1) [he] engaged in constitutionally protected activity; (2) the 17 defendant’ s actions would ‘chill a person of ordinary firmness’ from continuing to engage 18 in the protected activity; and (3) the protected activity was a substantial motivating factor 19 in the defendant’s conduct—i.e., that there was a nexus between the defendant’s actions 20 and an intent to chill speech.” Ariz. Students’ Ass’n v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents , 824 F.3d 858, 21 867 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting O’Brien v. Welty, 818 F.3d 920, 933 (9th Cir. 2016). The 22 plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that his exercise of his First Amendment rights 23 was a substantial or motivating factor behind the defendants’ conduct. Mt. Healthy City 24 Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977); Soranno’ s Gasco, Inc. v. 25 Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). 26 Plaintiff should also be aware that prisoners do not have “a separate constitutional 27 entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 28 860 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[t]here 1 is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure”). Accordingly, prisoners 2 cannot bring due process challenges to the processing of their grievances. See Ramirez, 3 334 F.3d at 860; McRoy v. Roe, 509 F. App’x 660, 660 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal 4 of claims “arising from defendants’ processing of and response to his grievances because 5 prisoners do not have a ‘constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance 6 procedure’”) (quoting Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 860). 7 IV. Warnings 8 A.

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)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Ramirez v. Galaza
334 F.3d 850 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Joseph McCoy v. Ernest Roe
509 F. App'x 660 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
Neil O'Brien v. John Welty
818 F.3d 920 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Arizona Students' Ass'n v. Arizona Board of Regents
824 F.3d 858 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Reese
2 F.3d 870 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Loren Christopher Tarabochia v. Yavapai County Sheriff's Department, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loren-christopher-tarabochia-v-yavapai-county-sheriffs-department-et-al-azd-2026.