Williams v. Scottsdale Police Department

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMay 11, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-00694
StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. Scottsdale Police Department (Williams v. Scottsdale 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
Williams v. Scottsdale Police Department, (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 23-00694-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Scottsdale Police Department, 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 Scottsdale Police Department and the Scottsdale Municipal 5 Court as Defendants in his two-count Complaint. Plaintiff seeks money damages. 6 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges “Scottsdale Police” violated his Fourth Amendment 7 rights when, on December 31, 2021, they entered the property at which he resided and told 8 him he had to leave. Plaintiff said “no,” and was arrested. 9 In Count Two, Plaintiff claims that on December 31, 2021, he was treated unfairly 10 at court. He claims “they didn’t follow the law and violated my rights at Scottsdale 11 Municipal Court.” 12 IV. Failure to State a Claim 13 A. Count One 14 Defendant Scottsdale Police Department is a subpart of the City of Scottsdale, not 15 a separate entity for purposes of suit. Gotbaum v. City of Phoenix, 617 F. Supp. 2d 878, 16 886 (D. Ariz. 2008); see Braillard v. Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct. 17 App. 2010) (county sheriff’s office is a nonjural entity); see also Vicente v. City of Prescott, 18 2012 WL 1438695, at *3 (D. Ariz. 2012) (city fire department is a nonjural entity); Wilson 19 v. Yavapai Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 2012 WL 1067959, at *4 (D. Ariz. 2012) (county sheriff’s 20 office and county attorney’s office are nonjural entities). Because Defendant Scottsdale 21 Police Department is not a separate entity, it is not capable of being separately sued. Thus, 22 the Court will dismiss Defendant Scottsdale Police Department. 23 Moreover, even if Plaintiff had sued the City of Scottsdale, his allegations do not 24 support a claim. A municipality may not be sued solely because an injury was inflicted by 25 its employees or agents. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 26 2006). The actions of individuals may support municipal liability only if the employees 27 were acting pursuant to an official policy or custom of the municipality. Botello v. 28 Gammick, 413 F.3d 971, 978-79 (9th Cir. 2005). A § 1983 claim against a municipal 1 defendant “cannot succeed as a matter of law” unless a plaintiff: (1) contends that the 2 municipal defendant maintains a policy or custom pertinent to the plaintiff’s alleged injury; 3 and (2) explains how such policy or custom caused the plaintiff’s injury. Sadoski v. Mosley, 4 435 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal of a municipal defendant pursuant 5 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)).

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)
Beck v. Ohio
379 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1964)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984)
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)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Michael Andrew Hunter
19 F.3d 895 (Fourth Circuit, 1994)
Jim Maxwell v. County of San Diego
697 F.3d 941 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Gotbaum Ex Rel. Gotbaum v. City of Phoenix
617 F. Supp. 2d 878 (D. Arizona, 2008)
Braillard v. Maricopa County
232 P.3d 1263 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2010)
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista
532 U.S. 318 (Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Williams v. Scottsdale Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-scottsdale-police-department-azd-2023.