Tena v. Arizona, State of

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedOctober 24, 2023
Docket4:23-cv-00425
StatusUnknown

This text of Tena v. Arizona, State of (Tena v. Arizona, State 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.

Bluebook
Tena v. Arizona, State of, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Opinion

1 WO JL 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Alfredo Miguel Tena, Jr., No. CV-23-00425-TUC-SHR 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 State of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Alfredo Miguel Tena, Jr., who is confined in the Pima County Adult 16 Detention Center, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3). For the 18 following reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma 19 Pauperis but dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 20 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 21 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 24 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 25 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 27 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 28 1 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 2 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 3 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 5 has raised legally frivolous or malicious claims, failed to state a claim upon which relief 6 may be granted, or sought monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 8 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 9 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 10 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 11 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 12 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 13 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 14 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 15 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’“ Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 16 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 17 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 18 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 19 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 20 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 21 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 22 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 23 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 24 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 25 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 26 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’“ Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 27 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 If the Court determines a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a 1 pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the 2 action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). For the 3 following reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 4 Because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 5 to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 Plaintiff is awaiting trial in Pima County Superior Court case #CR20231161 on 8 charges of manufacturing, possessing, transporting, selling or transferring a prohibited 9 weapon; possession of a weapon by a prohibited possessor; possession of narcotic drugs; 10 discharging a firearm within city limits; and possession of drug paraphernalia.1 Plaintiff is 11 also awaiting trial in Pima County Superior Court case #CR20231162 on charges of 12 aggravated assault, discharging a firearm within city limits, possession of a weapon by a 13 prohibited possessor, possession of a dangerous drug, and possession of drug 14 paraphernalia.2 15 In his Complaint, Plaintiff sues the State of Arizona, Pima County, and the City of 16 Tucson. Plaintiff asserts claims of “false imprisonment” under the Fourth, Fifth, and 17 Fourteenth Amendments. He seeks monetary relief and restoration of his rights. 18 Plaintiff alleges the following: 19 Defendants are responsible for allowing the violation of his civil rights by multiple 20 Tucson Police Department officers, who “flagrant[ly] disregard[ed]” procedures 21 “Congress has commanded.” Plaintiff asserts Defendants allowed him to be falsely 22 imprisoned “due to malicious and fraudulent, criminal police activity.” Plaintiff claims he 23 was a victim of a shooting, but he did not know the name of the person who shot him, and 24 he did not want to assist in police investigations. Plaintiff asserts Pima County Superior

25 1 See Pima County, Clerk of Superior Court, Website Record Search, 26 https://www.cosc.pima.gov/PublicDocs/ (search by case number CR20231161) (last visited Oct. 20, 2023). 27 2 See Pima County, Clerk of Superior Court, Website Record Search, 28 https://www.cosc.pima.gov/PublicDocs/ (search by case number CR20231162) (last visited Oct. 20, 2023). 1 Court is “holding [him] captive and presuming [him] to be guilty even while the police 2 reports and evidence are obviously full of false police testimony” and physical evidence 3 that “contradicts” probable cause. Plaintiff alleges six Tucson Police Department officers 4 violated his rights on September 2, 2023, and March 11, 2023, by charging him in 5 CR20231161 and CR20231162 and by using a 13-year-old felony to “deface” his character 6 and to justify the “thorough violations of all [his] rights as a United States citizen.” As his 7 injury, Plaintiff claims he suffered a gunshot wound that did not heal properly, severe 8 mental and emotional distress, loss of employment, and theft of his dog. 9 Plaintiff designates Count One as a false imprisonment claim under the Fourth 10 Amendment; Count Two as a false imprisonment claim under the Fourteenth Amendment; 11 and Count Three as a false imprisonment claim under the Fifth Amendment. 12 IV. Failure to State a Claim 13 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show (1) acts by the defendants 14 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges, or immunities 15 and (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St.

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)
Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
Younger v. Harris
401 U.S. 37 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Perez v. Ledesma
401 U.S. 82 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.
420 U.S. 592 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984)
United States v. Arvizu
534 U.S. 266 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Chavez v. Martinez
538 U.S. 760 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Wallace v. Kato
127 S. Ct. 1091 (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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tena v. Arizona, State of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tena-v-arizona-state-of-azd-2023.