Williams v. Arizona, State of

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMay 10, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-00695
StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. Arizona, State of (Williams 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
Williams v. Arizona, State of, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Opinion

1 KM 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Timothy Huntley Williams, No. CV 23-00695-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 State of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Timothy Huntley Williams, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, has 16 filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint 18 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 assess an initial partial filing fee of $6.00. The remainder of 23 the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 24 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 26 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 28 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 1 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 3 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 4 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 5 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 6 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 7 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 8 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 9 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 10 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 11 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 12 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 13 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 14 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 15 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 16 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 17 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 18 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 19 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 20 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 21 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 22 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 23 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 24 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 25 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 26 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 27 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 28 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 2 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 3 III. Complaint 4 Plaintiff names the following Defendants in his three-count Complaint: the State of 5 Arizona Prosecutor, Tempe Police Officer Daniel Reynolds, and the Tempe Police 6 Department. Plaintiff seeks money damages. 7 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Reynolds violated his Fourth Amendment 8 rights. Plaintiff claims Defendant Reynolds “had no right” to search him and “how could 9 [he] be trespassing at a fire station, for checking on [his] friend? That’s a safe place.” 10 Plaintiff alleges “they filed charges without finding probable cause” and searched him 11 without probable cause. 12 In Count Two, Plaintiff contends Defendant Reynolds violated his Fifth 13 Amendment rights when he told Plaintiff that Plaintiff was required by law to identify 14 himself. Plaintiff asserts this is “opposite of my Miranda right.” 15 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. 16 Plaintiff claims he was denied “substantial procedure rights” because “two years have 17 passed” and “they wanted to wait until I was in a worse position, they brought this charge 18 up because of the incident 10-31-22 to 11-08-22 from case CA-2020-107383.”1 Plaintiff 19 claims he was not indicted by a grand jury, “nor did they find probable cause before a 20 warrant was issued.” 21 IV. Failure to State a Claim 22 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 23 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 24 v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal interpretation of a 25

26 1 On November 1, 2022, a Petition to Revoke Probation was filed in Plaintiff’s criminal case, CR 2020-107383. See http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket 27 /CriminalCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2020-107383 (last accessed May 4, 2023). 28 1 civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 2 pled. Id. 3 A. Count One 4 Plaintiff alleges Defendants Reynolds searched and arrested him without probable 5 cause. As explained below, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendant Reynolds, 6 and the Court will dismiss without prejudice Count One. 7 1. Search 8 “The Fourth Amendment prohibits ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ by the 9 Government, and its protections extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles 10 that fall short of traditional arrest.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002). In 11 such cases, the Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the officer’s action is supported by 12 reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Id. “While reasonable suspicion requires 13 ‘considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence,’ an 14 officer must be able to articulate facts creating grounds to suspect that criminal activity 15 ‘may be afoot.’” Ramirez 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)
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
14 U.S. 304 (Supreme Court, 1816)
Beck v. Ohio
379 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1964)
Younger v. Harris
401 U.S. 37 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Perez v. Ledesma
401 U.S. 82 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.
420 U.S. 592 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Berkemer v. McCarty
468 U.S. 420 (Supreme Court, 1984)
United States v. Sokolow
490 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1989)
United States v. Arvizu
534 U.S. 266 (Supreme Court, 2002)
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)
Auburn Police Union v. Carpenter
8 F.3d 886 (First Circuit, 1993)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

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