Quintero 339148 v. Armstrong

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedDecember 3, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-01647
StatusUnknown

This text of Quintero 339148 v. Armstrong (Quintero 339148 v. Armstrong) 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
Quintero 339148 v. Armstrong, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Oscar Quintero, No. CV 20-01647-PHX-JAT (MTM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Benjamin Armstrong, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Oscar Quintero, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex- 16 Eyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). In a 17 September 18, 2020 Order, the Court granted Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the $400 filing 18 and administrative fees or file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4). 19 Plaintiff subsequently paid the filing fee (Doc. 5). The Court will dismiss the Complaint 20 and this case. 21 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 22 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 23 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 24 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 25 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 26 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 27 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). 28 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 1 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 2 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 3 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 4 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 5 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 6 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 7 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 8 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 9 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 10 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 11 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 12 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 13 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 14 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 15 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 16 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 17 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 18 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 19 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 20 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 21 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 22 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 23 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it cannot be 24 amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it without leave to amend. 25 II. Complaint 26 In his four count Complaint, Plaintiff asserts violations of his Sixth Amendment 27 rights in state court proceedings. Plaintiff sues Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Benjamin 28 Armstrong; Yuma Superior Court Clerk Lynn Fazz; and Assistant Yuma County Public 1 Defenders Eugene Marquez and Michael Breeze. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. 2 Plaintiff alleges a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights in each count. Plaintiff 3 alleges in Counts I and II: 4 The Arizona Court of Appeals denied Plaintiff’s motion to waive his right to counsel 5 in his appeals case because Plaintiff did not file the motion until more than 30 days after 6 he filed his notice of appeal. Plaintiff could not file his motion within 30 days because he 7 was being processed as a prisoner and lacked the ability to communicate with the Court. 8 Plaintiff contends that the Arizona Court of Appeals overlooked his explanation. As his 9 injury, Plaintiff alleges that he could not challenge his conviction and sentence as he wished 10 and claims that he was represented by ineffective counsel. 11 In Count III, Plaintiff alleges that he submitted a request to the Yuma County 12 Superior Court and the Yuma County Public Defender to send him his case records, but 13 each has failed to do so. As his injury, Plaintiff alleges that he was unable to raise his 14 issues in the Arizona Court of Appeals and challenge his conviction and sentence as he 15 wished. 16 In Count IV, Plaintiff alleges the following: 17 Defendants Marquez and Breeze failed to file a notice of direct appeal as Plaintiff 18 asked them to. Marquez was Plaintiff’s trial counsel. Plaintiff wanted to file a petition for 19 post-conviction relief under Rule 32 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Both 20 misled Plaintiff and pressed him not to communicate with the Superior Court about his 21 desire to file a post-conviction petition. On one occasion, Breeze told Plaintiff that if he 22 said what he wanted to say in court, it would hurt his defense and the court would not grant 23 his request. On the same occasion, Marquez told Plaintiff not to write to the judge because 24 the judge would ignore it and forward the letter to the state and hurt Plaintiff’s defense. As 25 his injury, Plaintiff states that Marquez filed a notice of appeal under Rule 31 of the Arizona 26 Rules of Criminal Procedure in which he suppressed facts that Plaintiff did not want 27 suppressed and failed to raise issues that Plaintiff wanted raised, i.e., ineffective assistance 28 of counsel. 1 Background 2 Plaintiff was convicted by a jury of one count each of first-degree murder and 3 attempted first-degree murder, and three counts of aggravated assault. State v. Quintero, 4 No. 1 CA-CR 19-0578, 2020 WL 5641203, at *1 (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2020). The trial 5 court imposed a combination of concurrent and consecutive sentences, with the longest 6 being natural life for the murder conviction. Id. On direct appeal, the Arizona Court of 7 Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences as modified. Id. Specifically, upon the 8 State’s concession, the judgment of guilt and the sentencing order were modified to reflect 9 that two aggravated assault counts were merged into a single count and the conviction and 10 sentence for one assault count was vacated. Id. 11 III. Failure to State a Claim 12 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 13 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 14 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 15 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 16 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 17 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 18 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant.

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

Related

Hepburn and Dundas's Heirs v. Dunlop & Co.
14 U.S. 179 (Supreme Court, 1816)
The Amiable Isabella
19 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1821)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Stump v. Sparkman
435 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Polk County v. Dodson
454 U.S. 312 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Rendell-Baker v. Kohn
457 U.S. 830 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.
457 U.S. 922 (Supreme Court, 1982)
West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel
526 U.S. 838 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Muhammad v. Close
540 U.S. 749 (Supreme Court, 2004)
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. Jimenez-Torres
435 F.3d 3 (First Circuit, 2006)
Myron S. Gritchen v. Gordon W. Collier
254 F.3d 807 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Quintero 339148 v. Armstrong, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quintero-339148-v-armstrong-azd-2020.