Newson v. Cochran

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMay 12, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-00821
StatusUnknown

This text of Newson v. Cochran (Newson v. Cochran) 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
Newson v. Cochran, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 WO JL 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Rafeal Deshawn Newson, No. CV 21-00821-PHX-JAT (MHB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Gayle Cochran, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Rafeal Deshawn Newson,1 who is confined in the Stanley Correctional 16 Institution in Stanley, Wisconsin, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will 18 deny the deficient Application to Proceed and will give Plaintiff 30 days to pay the filing 19 and administrative fees or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 20 I. Payment of Filing Fee 21 When bringing an action, a prisoner must either pay the $350.00 filing fee and a 22 $52.00 administrative fee in a lump sum or, if granted the privilege of proceeding in forma 23 pauperis, pay the $350.00 filing fee incrementally as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 24 An application to proceed in forma pauperis requires an affidavit of indigence and a 25 certified copy of the inmate’s trust account statement for the six months preceding the filing 26 of the Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). An inmate must submit statements from each 27 institution where the inmate was confined during the six-month period. Id. To assist 28 1 Plaintiff is also known as Marquis Lee Johnson. 1 prisoners in meeting these requirements, the Court requires use of a form application. 2 LRCiv 3.4. 3 If a prisoner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will assess an 4 initial partial filing fee of 20% of either the average monthly deposits or the average 5 monthly balance in Plaintiff’s account, whichever is greater. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). An 6 initial partial filing fee will only be collected when funds exist. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). 7 The balance of the $350.00 filing fee will be collected in monthly payments of 20% of the 8 preceding month’s income credited to an inmate’s account, each time the amount in the 9 account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 10 II. Application Fails to Comply With Statute 11 Plaintiff has not used the court-approved form for filing an Application to Proceed 12 In Forma Pauperis by a prisoner; rather, he has filed a non-prisoner Application to Proceed 13 In District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Plaintiff also has not submitted a 14 certified six-month trust account statement. In light of these deficiencies, the Court will 15 deny the Application to Proceed and will give Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the $402.00 16 filing and administrative fees or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 17 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts claims based on his March 20, 18 1999 arrest and subsequent prosecution and conviction in Maricopa County Superior Court 19 case #CR199904319.2 Plaintiff should be aware that prosecutors are absolutely immune 20 from liability for damages under § 1983 for their conduct in “initiating a prosecution and 21 in presenting the State’s case” insofar as that conduct is “intimately associated with the 22 judicial phase of the criminal process.” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 270 (1993) 23 (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976)). Immunity even extends to 24 prosecutors for “eliciting false or defamatory testimony from witnesses or for making false 25

26 2 This conviction is under the name Marquis L. Johnson. See https://corrections.az.gov/public-resources/inmate-datasearch (search by inmate number 27 149257 in Inactive Inmates) (last accessed May 10, 2021). Plaintiff was convicted of drive- by shooting, aggravated assault, endangerment, and flight from a law enforcement vehicle 28 and was sentenced to a 19.5-year term of imprisonment. Id. Plaintiff was released from ADC custody on May 5, 2019 and was extradited to Wisconsin pursuant to a detainer. Id. 1 or defamatory statements during, and related to, judicial proceedings.” Buckley, 509 U.S. 2 at 270; see also Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 2003) (prosecutor 3 absolutely immune from liability for failure to investigate the accusations against a 4 defendant before filing charges; for knowingly using false testimony at trial; and for 5 deciding not to preserve or turn over exculpatory material before trial, during trial, or after 6 conviction); Roe v. City & County of S.F., 109 F.3d 578, 583-84 (9th Cir. 1997) (absolute 7 immunity for decision to prosecute or not to prosecute and for professional evaluation of a 8 witness and evidence assembled by the police). 9 Plaintiff should also take note that the applicable statute of limitations in an action 10 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. 11 Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985). The Arizona statute of limitations for personal 12 injury actions is two years. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542(1). 13 Accrual of § 1983 claims is governed by federal law. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 14 384, 388 (2007). Under federal law, a claim accrues when the plaintiff “knows or has 15 reason to know of the injury that is the basis of the action.” Pouncil v. Tilton, 704 F.3d 16 568, 574 (9th Cir. 2012); Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 381 (9th Cir. 17 1998). 18 III. Warnings 19 A. Address Changes 20 Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 21 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other 22 relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this 23 action. 24 B. Possible Dismissal 25 If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these 26 warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 27 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure 28 to comply with any order of the Court). 1| ITIS ORDERED: 2 (1) ~~ Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied without prejudice. 4 (2) Within 30 days of the date this Order is filed, Plaintiff must either pay the 5 | $350.00 filing fee and $52.00 administrative fee or file a complete Application to Proceed 6| In Forma Pauperis and a certified six-month trust account statement.

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

Related

Imbler v. Pachtman
424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Wilson v. Garcia
471 U.S. 261 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons
509 U.S. 259 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Ayers v. Belmontes
549 U.S. 7 (Supreme Court, 2006)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park
159 F.3d 374 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)
Broam v. Bogan
320 F.3d 1023 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Newson v. Cochran, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newson-v-cochran-azd-2021.