Ryan Christopher Goff v. City of Phoenix, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: February 27, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-04537
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Ryan Christopher Goff, No. CV-25-04537-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 City of Phoenix, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 To initiate this case, Plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma 16 pauperis. (Docs. 1-2). Plaintiff thereafter filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 6). On 17 January 15, 2026, this Court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 18 1915(e)(2). (Doc. 10). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 19 (Id.) The Court also found the amended complaint failed to state a claim and dismissed the 20 amended complaint with leave to amend. (Id.). The Court further stated that if a second 21 amended complaint was filed, it could not be served until it was screened by this Court. 22 (Id.). 23 Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (Doc. 11). That filing was late under 24 the Court’s order allowing amendment. While the Court will, on this one occasion, accept 25 this late filing, Plaintiff is cautioned that going forward he must comply with all deadlines 26 or risk waiver, forfeiture or dismissal. 27 I. Screening – 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 28 As discussed in the January 15, 2026 Order: 1 “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also 3 Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that screening pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates the familiar standard applied in 4 the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). 5 6 Hairston v. Juarez, No. 22-CV-01801-BAS-WVG, 2023 WL 2468967, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 7 Mar. 10, 2023). 8 II. Discussion 9 In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff sues two Defendants: the City of 10 Phoenix and Kini L.E. Knudson in her official capacity as Director of the Street 11 Transportation Department of the City of Phoenix. In short summary, Plaintiff alleges that 12 he has a disability and that the public pedestrian path and sidewalk in front of his home do 13 not accommodate his disability because of a repeated flooding issue. Plaintiff brings two 14 causes of action: an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and an alleged 15 Monell claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to other relief, Plaintiff seeks a 16 preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants to change the engineering of 17 this public area to prevent flooding. 18 On this record, the Court finds that the second amended complaint against the two 19 named Defendants states a claim sufficiently to survive screening. Thus, the Court will 20 permit Plaintiff to serve the second amended complaint on the City of Phoenix and Kini 21 L.E. Knudson. These two Defendants will be required to respond to the second amended 22 complaint. The Court’s finding that the second amended complaint survives screening is 23 without prejudice to Defendants filing a motion to dismiss if they deem such a motion to 24 be appropriate. See Coleman v. Maldnado, 564 F. App’x 893, 894 (9th Cir. 2014) (a district 25 court may properly grant a motion to dismiss despite a prior screening order finding the 26 complaint stated a claim); Jones v. Sullivan, 19-CV-0025BKSCFH, 2020 WL 5792989, at 27 *5 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2020) (“A court’s initial screening under § 1915(e) and/or § 1915A 28 does not preclude a later dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).”). I. Conclusion 2 Based on the Court’s screening of the second amended complaint, 3 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff must serve the summons, complaint and a copy of 4|| this Order on each of the City of Phoenix and Kini L.E. Knudson within 60 days of the date || of this Order. Plaintiff may either serve the second amended complaint through his own 6 || means, or file a motion asking for service by the U.S. Marshals. Any motion for Marshal 7 || service must be filed within 14 days of the date of this Order. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will take no action on □□□□□□□□□□□ || request for preliminary injunctive relief found in the second amended complaint. To obtain 10] preliminary injunctive relief Plaintiff must file a motion that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants (the City of Phoenix and Kini L.E. 13 || Knudson) must answer or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint within the 14|| time limits set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 15 Dated this 27th day of February, 2026. 16

18 19 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-