Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00545/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00545-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JDDL-K

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Danuel Correa, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Yuma City Police Department, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-545-PHX-RCB (MEA)

ORDER

On March 23, 2011, Plaintiff Danuel Correa, who is confined in the Yuma County

Detention Center, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1)

and a deficient Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a March 25, 2011 Order, the

Court denied the deficient Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the

filing fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

On April 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. 6). The Court will grant the second Application to Proceed and will dismiss the

Complaint with leave to amend.

I. Second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

Plaintiff’s second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $25.93. The remainder of

the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income each

time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will

Case 2:11-cv-00545-RCB--MEA Document 9 Filed 04/15/11 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JDDL-K - 2 -

enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government agency to collect and forward

the fees according to the statutory formula. 

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised

claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does not

demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).

“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Id.

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for

relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial

experience and common sense.” Id. at 1950. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual

allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there

are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 1951.

But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts

must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th

Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent standards

Case 2:11-cv-00545-RCB--MEA Document 9 Filed 04/15/11 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JDDL-K - 3 -

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,

94 (2007) (per curiam)).

If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts,

a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the

action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court

should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type of advice “would

undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225,

231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to decide whether the court was

required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for

failure to state a claim, with leave to amend because the Complaint may possibly be saved

by amendment.

III. Complaint

In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendant Yuma City Police Department.

He alleges that Defendant “blew an explosive charge in the face of the victim” and that this

constitutes an aggravated assault on Plaintiff (Count One) and endangerment (Count Two),

in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-1204 and 3-1201, respectively. In his Request

for Relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey v.

Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further,

a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the

claim that were not initially pled. Id. 

A. Failure to Link Defendants with Injuries

To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a specific

injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link between the

injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377

Case 2:11-cv-00545-RCB--MEA Document 9 Filed 04/15/11 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JDDL-K - 4 -

(1976). Conclusory allegations that a Defendant or group of Defendants have violated a

constitutional right are not acceptable and will be dismissed. 

The actions of individuals may support municipal liability only if the employees were

acting pursuant to an official policy or custom of the municipality. Botello v. Gammick, 413

F.3d 971, 978-79 (9th Cir. 2005). A plaintiff must allege, as a matter of law, that the policy

or custom of the municipality caused him to suffer constitutional injury. Sadoski v. Mosley,

435 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has not alleged that a policy or custom of

Defendant Yuma City Police Department caused his constitutional injuries. Thus, the Court

will dismiss without prejudice Defendant Yuma City Police Department.

B. Failure to Allege the Violation of a Constitutional Right.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against persons acting under color of state law

who have violated rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and federal law. 42

U.S.C. § 1983; see also Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F.3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995).

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for violations of state law or state

constitutional rights. Ybarra v. Bastian, 647 F.2d 891, 892 (9th Cir. 1981). In order to state

a claim under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege a cognizable federal constitutional claim. Plaintiff

has failed to allege any federal constitutional or federal-law violations; he has only alleged

violations of Arizona statutes. Thus, the Court will dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s

Complaint because it fails to state a claim.

V. Leave to Amend

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first

amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail

Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails

to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the amended complaint and dismiss this

action without further notice to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First

Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its

Case 2:11-cv-00545-RCB--MEA Document 9 Filed 04/15/11 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JDDL-K - 5 -

entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original

Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count.

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements

telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of

the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to do;

(4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of Plaintiff’s

constitutional right; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of that

Defendant’s conduct. See Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371-72, 377.

Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he names as a Defendant. If Plaintiff

fails to affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific injury

suffered by Plaintiff, the allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for failure to

state a claim. Conclusory allegations that a Defendant or group of Defendants have

violated a constitutional right are not acceptable and will be dismissed.

Plaintiff should take note that the use of excessive force by police officers in the

course of an arrest can violate the arrestee’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from

unreasonable seizures. See White by White v. Pierce County, 797 F.2d 812, 816 (9th Cir.

1986). The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the use of reasonable force. Tatum v. City

& County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2006). Whether the force was

excessive depends on “whether the officers’ actions [were] ‘objectively reasonable’ in light

of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or

motivation.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989); Tatum, 441 F.3d at 1095; Lolli

v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 415 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court must balance the nature

and quality of the intrusion against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.

Graham, 490 U.S. at 396; Lolli, 351 F.3d at 415. Moreover, 

[t]he “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be

judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,

rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. . . . . “Not every

push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the

peace of a judge’s chambers,” violates the Fourth Amendment.

Case 2:11-cv-00545-RCB--MEA Document 9 Filed 04/15/11 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JDDL-K - 6 -

Graham, 490 U.S. at 396 (citations omitted). “Whether a particular use of force was

‘objectively reasonable’ depends on several factors, including the severity of the crime that

prompted the use of force, the threat posed by a suspect to the police or to others, and

whether the suspect was resisting arrest.” Tatum, 441 F.3d at 1095.

Plaintiff should also take note that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause,

not the Eighth Amendment, protects pretrial detainees from excessive force that amounts to

punishment. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1197 (9th Cir. 2002). “[T]he

Fourth Amendment sets the ‘applicable constitutional limitations’ for considering claims of

excessive force during pretrial detention.” Id. (quoting Pierce v. Multnomah County, 76 F.3d

1032, 1043 (9th Cir. 1996). 

A first amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542,

1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat an original complaint as

nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the original

complaint is waived if it is not raised in a first amended complaint. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

VI. Warnings

A. Release

Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of his release.

Also, within 30 days of his release, he must either (1) notify the Court that he intends to pay

the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why he cannot. Failure to comply may result

in dismissal of this action.

B. Address Changes

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

. . . .

Case 2:11-cv-00545-RCB--MEA Document 9 Filed 04/15/11 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JDDL-K - 7 -

C. Copies

Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See

LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice

to Plaintiff.

D. Possible “Strike”

Because the Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a claim, if Plaintiff fails

to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in this Order, the

dismissal may count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil

judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior

occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a

court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious,

or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

E. Possible Dismissal

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the

Court).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 6) is

granted.

(2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency,

Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $25.93.

(3) The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has

30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended complaint in compliance with

this Order.

Case 2:11-cv-00545-RCB--MEA Document 9 Filed 04/15/11 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JDDL-K - 8 -

(4) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of

Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice

that states that the dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

(5) The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a court-approved form for filing a civil

rights complaint by a prisoner.

DATED this 14th day of April, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00545-RCB--MEA Document 9 Filed 04/15/11 Page 8 of 8