McCarty v. Egnor

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided April 2, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-00473·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO JL 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jyles Jon Dale McCarty, No. CV 21-00473-PHX-MTL (MTM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Logan Jeffrey Egnor, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On March 19, 2021, Plaintiff Jyles Jon Dale McCarty, who is confined in a 16 Maricopa County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 17 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a March 26, 2021 Order, the Court 18 granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had 19 failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that 20 cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 21 On March 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) and a 22 second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Because the Court previously granted 23 Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the new Application to Proceed will 24 be denied as moot. The Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to 25 amend. 26 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 27 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 28 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 1 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 2 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 3 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 4 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 5 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 6 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 7 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 8 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 9 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 10 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 11 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 12 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 13 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 14 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 15 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 16 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 17 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 18 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 19 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 20 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 21 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 22 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 23 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 24 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 25 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 26 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 27 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 28 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 1 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 2 to amend. 3 II. First Amended Complaint 4 In his three-count First Amended Complaint,1 Plaintiff sues Phoenix Police 5 Department Officers A. Branvits, Logan Jeffrey Egnor, Emily Huskisson, and Sanjo Sabu. 6 Plaintiff asserts claims of excessive force, unlawful detainment, and “harassment and/or 7 intimidation of a citizen.” He seeks monetary relief and for “all parties to be fired ASAP.” 8 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that on October 20, 2020, Defendant Egnor stopped 9 Plaintiff, shot him with five bean bag rounds, searched him, and took him to jail without a 10 warrant or probable cause. Plaintiff asserts that he was not “being [a] threat” to himself, 11 the officers, or the public. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Egnor falsified government 12 documents, tampered with public records, assaulted and slandered Plaintiff, and neglected 13 his duty. Plaintiff does not identify any injury he suffered as a result of the conduct 14 described in Count One. 15 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Egnor held Plaintiff in the 4th Avenue 16 Jail, where Deputy Sheriffs assaulted Plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts he was denied medical 17 attention and placed on suicide watch pursuant to Defendant Egnor’s orders. As his injury, 18 Plaintiff claims he was physically injured and detained due to Defendant Egnor’s actions. 19 Plaintiff designates Count Three as a claim for harassment and intimidation. He 20 repeats his allegations that on October 20, 2020, Defendant Egnor assaulted, harassed, and 21 injured him. 22 III. Failure to State a Claim 23 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 24 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 25 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir.

26 1 Plaintiff includes with the First Amended Complaint several pages of exhibits 27 concerning previous instances of misconduct or excessive force by Defendant Egnor. First, the instructions accompanying the form complaint explicitly state not to submit exhibits. 28 Second, previous instances of misconduct do not establish a constitutional violation in this case. If Plaintiff files a second amended complaint, he must not submit exhibits. 1 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 2 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 3 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 4 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 5 72, 377 (1976). 6 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 7 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 8 v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal interpretation of a 9 civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 10 pled. Id. 11 A. Defendants Branvits, Huskisson, and Sabu 12 Plaintiff does not connect any of the allegations in the First Amended Complaint to 13 Defendants Branvits, Huskisson, and Sabu. The Court will therefore dismiss these 14 Defendants. 15 B. Defendant Egnor 16 1.

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

McCarty v. Egnor, (D. Ariz. 2021).

McCarty v. Egnor (McCarty v. Egnor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco
599 F.3d 946 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Wells v. Bonner
45 F.3d 90 (Fifth Circuit, 1995)
Price v. Roark
256 F.3d 364 (Fifth Circuit, 2001)
Brooks v. Marbury
24 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court, 1826)
Beck v. Ohio
379 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1964)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Wallace v. Kato
127 S. Ct. 1091 (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)
Alan Kimbrough McFadden v. Eddie Lucas
713 F.2d 143 (Fifth Circuit, 1983)
Charles J. Oltarzewski, Jr. v. Marcia Ruggiero
830 F.2d 136 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)