Scott, II v. Maricopa, County of
This text of Scott, II v. Maricopa, County of (Scott, II v. Maricopa, County of) 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.
Opinion
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Gene Edward Scott, II, No. CV-22-00607-PHX-DLR
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 County of Maricopa, et al.,
13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s application for a fee waiver (Doc. 2), which is granted. 17 The Court must dismiss a case proceeding on a fee waiver if “at any time the court 18 determines” that the “allegation of poverty is untrue” or that the “action or appeal” is 19 “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks 20 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(e)(2); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, Plaintiff has sued 22 Maricopa County and the State of Tennessee under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly violating 23 his constitutional rights. Section 1983 creates a cause of action against persons who 24 deprive others of constitutional rights under color of state law. “‘Persons’ liable for 25 damages under Section 1983 include state employees sued in their individual capacities. 26 States and their agencies and state employees sued in their official capacities are not proper 27 defendants under Section 1983 and therefore cannot be sued under the statute.” Marcotte 28 v. Monroe Corrections Complex, 394 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1294 (W.D. Wash. 2005) (internal || citations omitted). Because Plaintiff has not sued a person within the meaning of § 1983, 2 || his complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 3 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's application for a fee waiver (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED 6|| for failure to state a claim to relief. If he so chooses, Plaintiff may file an amended 7\| complaint that cures these deficiencies by no later than May 18, 2022. No amended 8 || complaint may be served, however, until it has been screened by the Court. If Plaintiff 9|| fails to file an amended complaint within the timeframe specified herein, the Clerk is 10 || directed to terminate this case without further order of the Court. 11 Dated this 19th day of April, 2022. 12 13 14 {Z, 15 _- Ch 16 Upited States Dictria Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
_2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Scott, II v. Maricopa, County of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-ii-v-maricopa-county-of-azd-2022.