Melone v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedApril 4, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-02097
StatusUnknown

This text of Melone v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (Melone v. Federal Bureau of Investigation) 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
Melone v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Opinion

1 WO JL 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Joseph Benedict Melone, No. CV 21-02097-PHX-MTL (MTM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On December 9, 2021, Plaintiff Joseph Benedict Melone, who is confined in the 16 Arizona State Prison Complex-Yuma, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On December 15, 2021, 18 the Court denied the deficient Application to Proceed, dismissed the Complaint because it 19 was not filed on a court-approved form, and gave Plaintiff 30 days to (1) pay the filing and 20 administrative fees or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and (2) file 21 an amended complaint using the court-approved form included with the Order. 22 On January 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma 23 Pauperis and a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 5), which superseded the original 24 Complaint in its entirety. On January 11, 2022, the Court denied the deficient Application 25 to Proceed and gave Plaintiff 30 days to pay the filing and administrative fees or file a 26 complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff subsequently filed two more 27 deficient Applications to Proceed, both of which the Court denied. 28 . . . . 1 On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed another Application to Proceed In Forma 2 Pauperis (Doc. 15). The Court will grant the March 30, 2022 Application to Proceed and 3 dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 4 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 5 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $28.98. The remainder 8 of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 9 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 10 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 11 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 12 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 13 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 14 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 15 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 16 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 17 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 18 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 19 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 20 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 21 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 22 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 23 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 24 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 25 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 26 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 27 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 28 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 1 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 2 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 3 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 4 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 5 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 6 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 7 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 8 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 9 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 10 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 11 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 12 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 13 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 14 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 15 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 16 to amend. 17 III. Background 18 Plaintiff pleaded guilty in Maricopa County Superior Court case #CR2013-428089 19 to one count of aggravated driving under the influence and was sentenced to probation.1 20 On December 17, 2019, Plaintiff was charged in this Court with one count of possession 21 of a firearm by a person subject to a court order. United States v. Melone, CR 19-01415- 22 PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. 2019). The Court required Plaintiff to be detained pending trial in 23 that case. Id. (Doc. 14). 24 Also on December 17, 2019, the State filed a petition to revoke Plaintiff’s probation 25 in his state court proceeding.2 On December 16, 2020, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to the charge 26

27 1 See http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseInfo .asp?caseNumber=CR2013-428089 (last accessed Mar. 30, 2022). 28 2 Id. 1 in CR 19-01415, and the next day, the Court sentenced him to a 24-month term of 2 imprisonment, followed by 2 years on supervised release. Id. (Docs. 67, 68). 3 On July 7, 2021, the trial court in Plaintiff’s state criminal proceeding revoked his 4 probation and sentenced him to 2.5 years in prison.3 5 IV. First Amended Complaint 6 In his two-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the Federal Bureau of 7 Investigation (FBI), Special Agents Jason Saitta and Jennifer Banszowski, Maricopa 8 County Adult Probation, and Probation Officers Carrie Ward and Arthur Christian. 9 Plaintiff asserts claims relating to a search of his home and his subsequent arrest. He seeks 10 a declaration that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and (g)(8) are unconstitutional, as well as monetary 11 relief. 12 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that on December 13, 2019, three non-party FBI 13 Agents verbally opened an investigation into Plaintiff. Defendant Saitta “drafted” the 14 investigation.

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)
United States v. Knights
534 U.S. 112 (Supreme Court, 2001)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
District of Columbia v. Heller
554 U.S. 570 (Supreme Court, 2008)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
McDonald v. City of Chicago
561 U.S. 742 (Supreme Court, 2010)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Reese
627 F.3d 792 (Tenth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Chester
628 F.3d 673 (Fourth Circuit, 2010)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Bena
664 F.3d 1180 (Eighth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Chapman
666 F.3d 220 (Fourth Circuit, 2012)
Dolly, Inc. v. Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc.
16 F.3d 394 (Federal Circuit, 1994)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Daniel Chovan
735 F.3d 1127 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Eric McGinnis
956 F.3d 747 (Fifth Circuit, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Melone v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melone-v-federal-bureau-of-investigation-azd-2022.