Sehring v. Smith

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 22, 2024
Docket3:23-cv-08581
StatusUnknown

This text of Sehring v. Smith (Sehring v. Smith) 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
Sehring v. Smith, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 KM 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Edmund Clayton David Sehring, No. CV-23-08581-PCT-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Ryan Smith, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Edmund Clayton David Sehring, who is not confined, has 16 filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to 17 Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). The Court will 18 dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 19 I. Application to Proceed 20 In his Application to Proceed, Plaintiff indicates he has insufficient funds to pay the 21 filing fee for this action. The Court, in its discretion, will grant Plaintiff’s Application to 22 Proceed. Plaintiff will not be required to pay the filing fees for this action. 23 II. Statutory Screening of In Forma Pauperis Complaints 24 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), in a case in which a plaintiff has been granted 25 in forma pauperis status, the Court shall dismiss the case “if the court determines that . . . 26 (B) the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may 27 be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 28 relief.” 1 2 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 3 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 4 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 5 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 6 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 7 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 8 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 9 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 10 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 11 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 12 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 13 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 14 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 15 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 16 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 17 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 18 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 19 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 20 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 21 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 22 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 23 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 24 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 25 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 26 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 III. Complaint 2 In his one-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Coconino County Deputy Sheriff Ryan 3 Smith, Coconino County Sheriff Jim Driscoll, Coconino County Deputy Attorney Blaine 4 Donovan, and Coconino County Attorney William P. Ring. Plaintiff seeks money 5 damages. 6 Plaintiff alleges he was wrongfully arrested and held in the Coconino County Jail 7 for 33 days. Plaintiff claims he was “moving private property” when he made a U-turn on 8 Country Club Road in Flagstaff, Arizona. According to Plaintiff, there was no traffic in 9 the left or right lane when he made the turn, but “all of a sudden[,] a car sped up behind 10 him and blew the horn and then went around [Plaintiff] on [his] left.” Plaintiff then made 11 a right turn after which he noticed flashing lights behind him. He pulled into the Flagstaff 12 Mall parking lot and turned off the vehicle. Defendant Smith approached and asked 13 Plaintiff for his driver’s license. Plaintiff replied that he did not have a license and 14 presented Smith with his “state national credential card.” Defendant Smith said the card 15 was not real. Plaintiff informed Smith the truck was not his and handed Smith the 16 registration. 17 Smith took the registration back to his car and returned ten minutes later, telling 18 Plaintiff that every person in Arizona needs to have a driver’s license. Plaintiff told him 19 he was “not driving, [he] was moving property.” Smith said “it was the law,” and Plaintiff 20 said “it is statu[t]e and code which are not law but are color of law.” 21 Smith asked Plaintiff to step out of the truck and Plaintiff complied “under duress.” 22 Smith put Plaintiff’s hands behind his back and cuffed him. Plaintiff informed Smith that 23 he had a pistol, which Smith removed. Smith handed the pistol to Curtis Perry1 and 24 “push[ed Plaintiff] up against the cruiser . . . in a rough manner.” Smith then opened the 25 door of the police car and “shoved [Plaintiff] in.” Smith read Plaintiff his rights and asked 26 Plaintiff if he understood, to which Plaintiff replied, “[N]o.” 27 Smith then took Plaintiff to the Coconino County jail and “put [him] in a cage” and

28 1 Plaintiff does not state whether Curtis Perry is also law enforcement officer. 1 told him to “get in line for court, which [Plaintiff] did.” However “they” said Plaintiff “had 2 to wear a mask.” Plaintiff said that he did not have to wear a mask and “told them it was 3 detrimental to [his] health.” “They” told Plaintiff that if he did not wear the mask, he “had 4 to go back into the cage.” This occurred two more times over the next three days. “They” 5 also asked for Plaintiff’s fingerprints, but Plaintiff “kept declining.” 6 Plaintiff claims he could not sleep because there was no mattress, and he has back 7 and hip problems. He “finally . . . told them if they let [him] go into general population 8 [he] would let them fingerprint [him].” Plaintiff was then placed in solitary confinement 9 for three weeks because he refused to wear a mask. Plaintiff was eventually “heard by the 10 judge,” who said he did not understand why Plaintiff was still incarcerated and released 11 him. Plaintiff states he “spent 33 days in a cage for four misdemeanors that were all 12 dropped on 2/1/2023.” 13 IV. Failure to State a Claim 14 A. Defendants Donovan and Ring 15 Plaintiff makes no allegations regarding Defendants Donovan and Ring and 16 therefore fails to state a claim against them. However, even if Plaintiff had alleged facts 17 regarding Defendants Donovan and Ring, prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability 18 for damages under § 1983 for their conduct in “initiating a prosecution and in presenting 19 the State’s case” insofar as that conduct is “intimately associated with the judicial phase of 20 the criminal process.” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 270 (1993) (quoting Imbler 21 v.

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

Related

Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco
599 F.3d 946 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Wells v. Bonner
45 F.3d 90 (Fifth Circuit, 1995)
Price v. Roark
256 F.3d 364 (Fifth Circuit, 2001)
Green v. Biddle
21 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1823)
Beck v. Ohio
379 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1964)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Imbler v. Pachtman
424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons
509 U.S. 259 (Supreme Court, 1993)
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)
Patricia J. Barry Charlene Karr v. Gary Fowler
902 F.2d 770 (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)
United States v. Anthony Bruce Cannon
15 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Sears Roebuck & Co. v. United States
22 F.3d 1082 (Federal Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sehring v. Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sehring-v-smith-azd-2024.