Romero 265050 v. Thomas

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedFebruary 5, 2021
Docket2:20-cv-01627
StatusUnknown

This text of Romero 265050 v. Thomas (Romero 265050 v. Thomas) 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
Romero 265050 v. Thomas, (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 Paulino Romero, No. CV 20-01627-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Daniel Thomas, 13 Defendant.

14 15 On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff Paulino Romero, who was then confined in a Maricopa 16 County Jail, filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, against 17 Defendant Daniel Thomas. On August 19, 2020, Defendant Thomas filed a Notice of 18 Removal and removed the case to this Court. On August 21, 2020, Defendant filed a 19 Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 3.) 20 In a September 2, 2020 Order, the Court informed Plaintiff of his rights and 21 obligations to respond (Doc. 5) to the Motion to Dismiss. A copy of that Order sent to 22 Plaintiff at his address of record was not returned to the Court. Plaintiff has not opposed 23 the Motion to Dismiss. 24 On November 3, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion for Ruling (Doc. 6) on his Motion 25 to Dismiss, which Plaintiff has not opposed. The Court will grant both Motions. 26 I. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 27 Dismissal of a complaint, or any claim within it, for failure to state a claim under 28 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) may be based on either a “‘lack of a cognizable 1 legal theory’ or ‘the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.’” 2 Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 3 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)). In determining 4 whether a complaint states a claim under this standard, the allegations in the complaint are 5 taken as true and the pleadings are construed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. 6 Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir. 2007). A 7 pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 8 entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). But “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the 9 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what . . . the claim is and the grounds 10 upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (internal quotation 11 omitted). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must state a claim that is “plausible 12 on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 13 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff 14 pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 15 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Where the plaintiff 16 is a pro se prisoner, the court must “construe the pleadings liberally and [] afford the 17 petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 18 II. Complaint 19 In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following: 20 Defendant Thomas kneed Plaintiff in the face and his right side, while his partner 21 choked Plaintiff from behind. Defendant Thomas and his partner handcuffed Plaintiff and 22 “took [him] down.” The cuffs were locked too tightly on Plaintiff’s wrists and his hands 23 became purple. Plaintiff still has scars on his wrist, and he has lost feeling in his thumb 24 and right index finger. Plaintiff also suffered emotional damage. 25 Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Thomas violated his First, Fifth, Eighth, and 26 Fourteenth Amendment rights. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 III. Discussion 2 A. Failure to State a Claim 3 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 4 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 5 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 6 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 7 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 8 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 9 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 10 72, 377 (1976). 11 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 12 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 13 v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal interpretation of a 14 civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 15 pled. Id. 16 The Complaint is devoid of specific factual allegations that would support a 17 conclusion that Defendant Thomas violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff does 18 not allege the date the incident described in the Complaint occurred, whether the incident 19 occurred in the course of an arrest, whether Plaintiff was resisting or refusing to comply 20 with orders when he was kneed, or whether he informed anyone that the cuffs were too 21 tight or reported his injuries to anyone. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state any claim 22 upon which relief could be granted. The Court will therefore dismiss the Complaint. 23 B. Leave to Amend 24 Although Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, considering 25 the timing of his sentencing, it appears he might not have received the Court’s September 26 2, 2020 Order directing him to file a response to the Motion. The Court will therefore give 27 Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his Complaint. 28 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint to cure the 1 deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form 2 to use for filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, 3 the Court may strike the amended complaint and dismiss this action without further notice 4 to Plaintiff. 5 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 6 Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 7 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 8 Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 9 A first amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 10 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 11 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990).

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

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
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)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Anthony Bruce Cannon
15 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare System, LP
534 F.3d 1116 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont
506 F.3d 895 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Romero 265050 v. Thomas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romero-265050-v-thomas-azd-2021.