Moore v. Unknown Party

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided September 30, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-01418·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO KM 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Randy Michael Ki’heem Moore, No. CV 20-01418-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Unknown, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff Randy Michael Ki’heem Moore, who is confined in a 16 Maricopa County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 5). In an August 18 19, 2020 Order, the Court denied the Application to Proceed with leave to refile. On 19 August 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 5). 20 The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 21 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 22 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s August 27 Application to Proceed In Forma 23 Pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 24 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory 25 filing fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 26 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 27 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 28 government 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 Complaint will be dismissed 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 Plaintiff names Unknown Legal Support Specialists S/N B1300, S/N B0429, and 8 S/N B3638 as Defendants in his three-count Complaint. Plaintiff seeks money damages 9 and declaratory and injunctive relief. 10 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges his First Amendment rights were violated when his 11 May 1, 2020 request to use the law library was denied. Plaintiff states he wanted to assist 12 in the defense of his criminal case and wanted to file “a motion to petition for self- 13 representation.” Plaintiff claims he was given a “motion to change counsel,” and “was 14 notified that the Inmate Legal Services does not give legal advice and that [he] was 15 represented by counsel.” Plaintiff asserts that on June 16, 2020, he again requested access 16 to the law library and was again denied. Plaintiff states that on June 19, 2020, he attempted 17 to send a motion to be filed in criminal case, but Defendant B0429 returned the motion.1 18 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges Defendant B3638 violated his First Amendment 19 rights on June 30, 2020 when Defendant “abridged [Plaintiff’s] right to file a petition” 20 because Plaintiff was represented by counsel. Plaintiff claims he feared his petition would 21 go unfiled.2 22 In Count Three, Plaintiff claims his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights 23 were violated when Defendants “abused their authority by deliberately after grievance and 24 continuous notification by [Plaintiff] that their actions possibly constituted a violation of

25 1 The Maricopa County Superior Court docket indicates Plaintiff has filed multiple 26 pro per motions in his criminal case throughout June, July, and August. See Moore v. Arizona, CR2020-110840, http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourt 27 Cases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2020-110840 (last visited Sept. 24, 2020). 28 2 On July 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a pro per Petition for Habeas Corpus in the Maricopa County Superior Court. (Id.) 1 [his] rights, . . . rendered [Plaintiff] unable to [assist] his own defense using their services 2 and left [Plaintiff’s] liberty life and limb in jeopar[d]y and in question.” 3 IV. Failure to State a Claim 4 Plaintiff states he is represented by counsel in his criminal case, and this fact is also 5 reflected on the Maricopa County Superior Court docket. A prisoner who is represented 6 by counsel “has no constitutional right of access to legal materials.” United States v. 7 Robinson, 913 F.2d 712, 717 (9th Cir. 1990). The state has the option of deciding whether 8 to provide legal assistance or access to a law library. See Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 9 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). “Availability of legal assistance at government expense . . . is 10 a constitutionally permissible means of access.” United States v.

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

Moore v. Unknown Party, (D. Ariz. 2020).

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

Related

Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
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)
United States v. John Paul Wilson
690 F.2d 1267 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)
Michael L. Martin v. Sheriff Richard Tyson
845 F.2d 1451 (Seventh Circuit, 1988)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Wackerman Dairy, Inc. v. Wilson
7 F.3d 891 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)