Nina Mae Becker v. Kristin Mayes, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedOctober 23, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-03529
StatusUnknown

This text of Nina Mae Becker v. Kristin Mayes, et al. (Nina Mae Becker v. Kristin Mayes, 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
Nina Mae Becker v. Kristin Mayes, et al., (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Nina Mae Becker, No. CV-25-03529-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Kristin Mayes, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Nina Mae Becker, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail,1 has filed a 16 pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma 17 Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 18 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 19 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 22 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 23 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 24 25

26 1 Plaintiff was in custody at the Estrella Jail when she filed the Complaint. On 27 October 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address with a residential address. However, according to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office website, Plaintiff remains in 28 custody at the Estrella Jail. See https://www.mcso.org/InmateInfo (search by Booking Number G143308) (last accessed Oct. 16, 2025). The Court will direct the Clerk of Court to correct the docket to reflect that Plaintiff is in custody. 1 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 2 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 3 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 4 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 5 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 7 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which 8 relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 9 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 10 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 11 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 12 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 13 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 14 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 15 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 16 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 17 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 18 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 19 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 21 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 22 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 23 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 24 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 25 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 26 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 27 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 28 1 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 2 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 3 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 4 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 5 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 6 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because it may 7 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 8 III. Complaint 9 In her Complaint,2 Plaintiff sues Arizona Attorney General Kristin Mayes, President 10 of the Arizona Senate Warren Petersen, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives 11 Steve Montenegro, and Maricopa County Sheriff Gerard Sheridan. Plaintiff brings claims 12 regarding her access to the courts, freedom of the press, and retaliation. She seeks 13 “compensation for unlawful imprisonment,” and—if she “loses her criminal case” or 14 receives a “harsher sentence”—compensation for “additional unlawful imprisonment.” 15 Plaintiff designates Count One as a Sixth Amendment access-to-the-courts claim. 16 Plaintiff alleges that the Sheriff refuses to provide access to the Maricopa County Superior 17 Court docket. Plaintiff asserts that criminal defendants who are not in custody have public 18 access to the docket with daily updates. She claims she has requested the docket in three 19 cases and has “received copies of 2 cases in 2 days.” Plaintiff alleges she is “still waiting” 20 for the docket in the third case, which she requested on August 19, 2025. She contends 21 that she has a trial date in October, and if she does not have daily access to the docket, she 22 will not be prepared or “get a fair trial.” 23 Plaintiff designates Count Two as a “Bill of Rights” claim and identifies the issue 24 involved as “freedom of the press.” Plaintiff inquires, “We have freedom of religion in 25 26

27 2 Plaintiff has checked the box on the form complaint for “other” as the source of the Court’s jurisdiction over the Complaint and has written in a purported jurisdictional 28 basis, but the writing is illegible. Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court will construe the Complaint as brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 prison[;] why don’t we have freedom of the press[?]” As her injury, Plaintiff alleges that 2 “without knowing current events[,] it is harder to fight cases intelligently.” 3 Plaintiff designates Count Three as a Fourth Amendment retaliation claim. Plaintiff 4 alleges she has been “illegally held” since she “got a release order” on December 3, 2024, 5 because “the Sheriff [does not] like [her] political beliefs.” 6 IV. Failure to State a Claim 7 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 8 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived her of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 9 (4) caused her damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 10 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n,

Related

Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
United States v. John Paul Wilson
690 F.2d 1267 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)
Taylor v. List
880 F.2d 1040 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
United States v. Calvin Lyniol Robinson
913 F.2d 712 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell
981 F.2d 1062 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nina Mae Becker v. Kristin Mayes, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nina-mae-becker-v-kristin-mayes-et-al-azd-2025.