Turner v. Phoenix Police Department

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedApril 17, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-00231
StatusUnknown

This text of Turner v. Phoenix Police Department (Turner v. Phoenix Police Department) 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
Turner v. Phoenix Police Department, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Anthony P. Turner, No. CV-25-00231-PHX-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Phoenix Police Department, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Anthony P. Turner, who is confined in a Maricopa County 16 Jail, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application 17 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed 18 and will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 19 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 20 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 23 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 24 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 26 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 . . . . 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 claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or seek 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 [self-represented litigant’s] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 25 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a self-represented prisoner] 26 ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. 27 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 . . . . 1 If the Court determines a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a 2 self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 3 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 4 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend 5 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim. 6 III. Complaint 7 In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants the Phoenix Police 8 Department and “arresting officers and sergeant.” He seeks monetary damages. 9 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges he was subjected to false arrest, assault, 10 discrimination, and trauma. He claims that after he was attacked by two dogs and a man 11 tried to hit him on December 29, 2024, police officers came to the scene and “locked [him] 12 up.” Plaintiff contends he was not taken to a status conference on January 8, 2025, and, as 13 of January 15, he had not been taken to court and had not had a phone call. He asserts he 14 has no lawyer or anyone to “talk to” and did “nothing but save [his] own life.” Plaintiff 15 also contends he was given “no help for dog bites” and the arresting officers “kept [his] 16 hand locked in back for 5 hour[s].” 17 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges he was subjected to false arrest, false imprisonment, 18 and pain. He claims he lost his pets, which were at his home, including a “priceless” bird 19 that died. Plaintiff also asserts he was discriminated against because he is Black and was 20 “made to lay on [the] cold floo[r]” in the jail for two days. 21 IV. Failure to State a Claim 22 Although self-represented pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 23 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of 24 action. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal 25 interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim 26 that were not initially pled. Id. 27 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege they suffered a specific 28 injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link between 1 the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 2 377 (1976). “A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an 3 individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. 4 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). 5 A. Defendant Phoenix Police Department 6 Defendant Phoenix Police Department is a subpart of the City of Phoenix, not a 7 separate entity for purposes of suit. Gotbaum v. City of Phx., 617 F. Supp. 2d 878, 886 (D. 8 Ariz. 2008); see Braillard v. Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010) 9 (county sheriff’s office is a nonjural entity); see also Vicente v. City of Prescott, 2012 WL 10 1438695, at *3 (D. Ariz. 2012) (city fire department is a nonjural entity); Wilson v. Yavapai 11 County Sheriff’s Office, 2012 WL 1067959, at *4 (D. Ariz. 2012) (county sheriff’s office 12 and county attorney’s office are nonjural entities).

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

Related

Wells v. Bonner
45 F.3d 90 (Fifth Circuit, 1995)
Price v. Roark
256 F.3d 364 (Fifth Circuit, 2001)
Beck v. Ohio
379 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1964)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
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)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
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)
United States v. Homer Lee Tucker
8 F.3d 673 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Russell Marcilis, II v. Township of Redford
693 F.3d 589 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Turner v. Phoenix Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-phoenix-police-department-azd-2025.