Williams v. Hartsell

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMay 10, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-00630
StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. Hartsell (Williams v. Hartsell) 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. Hartsell, (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 23-00630-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Roger Hartsell, 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 . . . . 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, that fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 7 such 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 . . . . 1 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts, a pro se 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). 4 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 5 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 Plaintiff names the following Defendants in his eight-count Complaint: Maricopa 8 County Court Commissioner Roger Hartsell, Public Defender Jay Rock, Mesa Police 9 Officer Spires, the Maricopa County Superior Court, the Mesa Police Department, 10 Maricopa County, and the “Adult Probation Department.” Plaintiff seeks money damages. 11 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Hartsell violated his Fourteenth 12 Amendment rights when he “intentionally filed paperwork wrong, in order to hide 13 wrongdoing, 11-08-22 CR 2020-107383.” 14 In Count Two, Plaintiff claims Defendant Rock violated his Fourteenth Amendment 15 rights when he “intentionally had paperwork[] filed using [Plaintiff’s] signature without 16 a[u]thorization on probation paperwork.” 17 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Spires violated his Fourth Amendment 18 rights when, on October 31, 2022, he searched Plaintiff without probable cause. In Count 19 Four, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Spires arrested him without probable cause, in violation 20 of the Fourteenth Amendment. 21 In Count Five, Plaintiff alleges his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated 22 when the Maricopa County Superior Court failed to provide him due process by 23 “intentionally filing paperwork with [Plaintiff’s] signature, without [his] authorization.” 24 In Count Six, Plaintiff alleges his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when 25 “Mesa Police searched and arrested [him] without probable cause.” 26 In Count Seven, Plaintiff claims his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated 27 when he was held in the Maricopa County Jail from October 31 to November 8, 2022, “for 28 no reason.” 1 IV. Failure to State a Claim 2 A. Defendant Hartsell 3 Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for damages for their judicial acts 4 except when they are taken ‘in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 5 435 U.S. 349, 356-357 (1978); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). 6 An act is ‘judicial” when it is a function normally performed by a judge and the parties 7 dealt with the judge in his or her judicial capacity. Stump, 435 U.S. at 362; Crooks v. 8 Maynard, 913 F.2d 699, 700 (9th Cir. 1990). This immunity attaches even if the judge is 9 accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, Peirson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967), 10 or of making grave errors of law or procedure, Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 11 (9th Cir. 1988). Regardless of the judge’s status in the judicial hierarchy, a judge has 12 absolute immunity for acts performed in the judge’s official capacity. See Tanner 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)
Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
Beck v. Ohio
379 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1964)
Pierson v. Ray
386 U.S. 547 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Stump v. Sparkman
435 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Polk County v. Dodson
454 U.S. 312 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (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)
Joseph Brewer v. M. Prentiss Blackwell
692 F.2d 387 (Fifth Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Williams v. Hartsell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-hartsell-azd-2023.