Williams v. Tempe Police Department

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMay 10, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-00693
StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. Tempe Police Department (Williams v. Tempe 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. Tempe 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 23-00693-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Tempe 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 Tempe Police Department, Tempe Marketplace Security Officer 5 Christopher Robert, and the State of Arizona as Defendants in his three-count Complaint. 6 Plaintiff seeks money damages. 7 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Robert violated his Fourteenth 8 Amendment rights when, on September 24, 2022, he was working as security at Tempe 9 Marketplace and lied to police officers by telling them Plaintiff was trespassing. Plaintiff 10 claims “there were no prior incidents, he had no reason, except that [Plaintiff] was black.” 11 Plaintiff asserts Tempe Marketplace is a public business and Tempe Police “failed to 12 realize [Plaintiff] had constitutional rights in determining probable cause.” 13 In Count Two, Plaintiff claims “retaliation” in violation of the Fourteenth 14 Amendment. Plaintiff asserts he believes “this case was brought up as a result of the 15 situation 10-31-22 to 11-08-22 from case CR 2020-107383.”1 Plaintiff states he was not 16 indicted by a grand jury, “nor was there probable cause found anywhere before issuing a 17 warrant.” 18 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges Tempe Police violated his Fifth Amendment rights. 19 Plaintiff claims when he was approached by “the Tempe Police,” an officer said Plaintiff 20 had to tell them his name, “even tho[ugh] he didn’t have a specific name of anyone he was 21 looking for.” 22 IV. Failure to State a Claim 23 A. Count One 24 “Like the state-action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, the under-color- 25 of-state-law element of § 1983 excludes from its reach ‘merely private conduct, no matter 26

27 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 28 /CriminalCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2020-107383 (last accessed May 3, 2023). 1 how discriminatory or wrongful.’” Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 2 (1999) (quoting Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002 (1982)). “[S]tate action requires 3 both an alleged constitutional deprivation ‘caused by the exercise of some right or privilege 4 created by the State or by a rule of conduct imposed by the State or by a person for whom 5 the State is responsible,’ and that ‘the party charged with the deprivation must be a person 6 who may fairly be said to be a state actor.’” Id. (quoting Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 7 U.S. 922, 937 (1982)). 8 Defendant Robert is a private party, not a state actor. Moreover, although private 9 parties who are jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action are acting under 10 color of law, Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1154 (9th Cir.

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

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Blum v. Yaretsky
457 U.S. 991 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Berkemer v. McCarty
468 U.S. 420 (Supreme Court, 1984)
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)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Davis
530 F.3d 1069 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Valdes-Vega
738 F.3d 1074 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
Collins v. Womancare
878 F.2d 1145 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

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