Smith v. Schuster

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided April 29, 2021·No. 3:20-cv-08141·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Joshua Daniel Smith, No. CV 20-08141-PCT-MTL (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Doug Schuster, et al., 13 14 Defendants.

15 16 On June 15, 2020, Plaintiff Joshua Daniel Smith, who was then-confined in the 17 Mohave County Jail in Kingman, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff did not pay the $350.00 civil action filing fee and $50.00 19 administrative fee or file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Non-Habeas). In 20 a June 23, 2020 Order, the Court granted Plaintiff 30 days to pay the filing and 21 administrative fees or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Non- 22 Habeas) (Doc. 3). On June 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma 23 Pauperis (Habeas) (Doc. 4) and an inmate trust account statement (Doc. 5). Plaintiff 24 included an explanation indicating that his Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Non- 25 Habeas) was mistakenly filed in his habeas corpus case, Smith v. Unknown, CV 20-08125- 26 PCT-MTL (JFM).1 The Court ordered the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 27

28 1 In that case, the Court denied the non-habeas Application to Proceed because the wrong form had been used. Smith, CV 20-08125, Doc. 7. 1 (Habeas) (Doc. 4) filed in this case to be re-docketed in CV 20-08125-PCT-MTL (JFM). 2 In an Order filed in CV 20-08125, the Court ordered the non-habeas Application to Proceed 3 filed in that case, Doc. 5, be re-docketed in this case, which occurred on July 22, 2020 4 (Doc. 7). 5 In seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff used the court-approved 6 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis for use by prisoners (Doc. 7). On August 10, 7 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address (Doc. 9) indicating he is no longer in 8 custody.2 Because Plaintiff had been released since he filed his prisoner Application to 9 Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the Court denied his prisoner Application to Proceed and 10 granted him 30 days to file a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis. 11 Plaintiff filed a non-prisoner Application to Proceed in District Court Without 12 Prepaying Fees or Costs, which was granted. The Court dismissed the Complaint with 13 leave to amend. Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 13). The Court will 14 dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 15 I. Statutory Screening of In Forma Pauperis Complaints 16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), in a case in which a plaintiff has been granted 17 in forma pauperis status, the Court shall dismiss the case “if the court determines that . . . 18 (B) the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may 19 be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 20 relief.” 21 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 22 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 23 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 24 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 25 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 26 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 27

28 2 As discussed below, Plaintiff was subsequently charged again in Mohave County Superior Court but is not currently in custody. 1 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 2 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 3 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 4 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 5 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 6 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 7 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 8 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 9 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 10 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 11 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 12 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 13 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 14 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 15 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 16 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 17 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 18 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 19 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 20 to amend. 21 II. First Amended Complaint 22 In his one-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a violation of due 23 process. Plaintiff sues Kingman Police Detective Heath Mosby and Deputy Mohave 24 County Attorney Jacob Cote. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive relief. 25 The following background is relevant to Plaintiff’s claim: 26 From April 16, 2014 until June 2016, Plaintiff was a federal pretrial detainee 27 confined in the Southern Nevada Detention Center in Pahrump, Nevada. See United States 28 1 v. Smith, CR 14-00052 (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 2014), Docs. 21, 26, 27.3 On March 24, 2015, 2 Kingman Police Detective Heath Mosby interviewed Plaintiff in Pahrump in connection 3 with a criminal investigation of an offense committed in Mohave County, Arizona. 4 Plaintiff was not contacted further about that investigation or offense during the pendency 5 of his federal criminal case. On June 1, 2016, Plaintiff was sentenced in his federal criminal 6 case to a 70-month term of imprisonment followed by lifetime supervised release. Smith, 7 CR 14-00052, Doc. 73. On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff’s supervised release terms were modified 8 to transfer supervision to the Middle District of Florida, where Plaintiff had family. Id., 9 Doc. 80. 10 On May 6, 2019, shortly before the expiration of Plaintiff’s federal criminal 11 sentence, Plaintiff received a “Detainer Action Letter” informing him that a detainer had 12 been lodged against him by the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) concerning 13 Mohave County Superior Court case# CR 2015-761.4 On May 14, 2019, upon Plaintiff’s 14 release from a federal prison in California, Long Beach Police arrested him on a Mohave 15 County felony fugitive warrant.5 Plaintiff was extradited to Arizona and booked into the 16 Mohave County jail on May 22, 2019. The next day, May 23, 2019, Plaintiff was arraigned 17 in the Mohave County case. Plaintiff was detained until August 2020, when Deputy 18 County Attorney Cote dismissed CR 2015-761, without prejudice, after having failed to 19 timely seek admission of Rule 404(c)6 evidence, specifically, evidence of Plaintiff’s federal 20 offense and conviction. See Smith, CV 20-08125, Doc. 14 at 4-5.

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

Smith v. Schuster, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Smith v. Schuster (Smith v. Schuster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Younger v. Harris
401 U.S. 37 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Perez v. Ledesma
401 U.S. 82 (Supreme Court, 1971)
United States v. Marion
404 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.
420 U.S. 592 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Imbler v. Pachtman
424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court, 1976)
United States v. Lovasco
431 U.S. 783 (Supreme Court, 1977)
United States v. MacDonald
456 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Burns v. Reed
500 U.S. 478 (Supreme Court, 1991)
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)