Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00060/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00060-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jamonz Majerrious Ross, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-60-PHX-JAT (ECV)

ORDER

On January 7, 2011, Plaintiff Jamonz Majerrious Ross, who is confined in the

Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a January 27, 2011

Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because

Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended

complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

On March 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) and second

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 7). Because Plaintiff has already been

granted in forma pauperis status, the Court will deny as moot the second Application to

Proceed. The Court will also dismiss the First Amended Complaint and this action.

I. 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

Case 2:11-cv-00060-JAT--ECV Document 11 Filed 03/17/11 Page 1 of 4
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

- 2 -

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

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

94 (2007) (per curiam)).

II. First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff names the following Defendants in the First Amended Complaint: Maricopa

County Superior Court Judge Sammuel Thumma, Superior Court Commissioner Lisa

Roberts, and State’s Attorney April Arlene Sponsel.

Case 2:11-cv-00060-JAT--ECV Document 11 Filed 03/17/11 Page 2 of 4
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 1

This claim is entirely unrelated to the claims in Plaintiff’s original Complaint which

challenged the conditions of his confinement.

- 3 -

Plaintiff raises one ground for relief in which he claims his Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights are being violated because he has not been given a preliminary hearing

or timely indictment.1

 Plaintiff seeks to have Defendants “brought to justice or fired.”

III. Failure to State a Claim

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for damages for their judicial acts

except when they are taken “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman,

435 U.S. 349, 356-357 (1978); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). An

act is “judicial” when it is a function normally performed by a judge and the parties dealt

with the judge in his or her judicial capacity. Stump, 435 U.S. at 362; Crooks v. Maynard,

913 F.2d 699, 700 (9th Cir. 1990). 

This immunity attaches even if the judge is accused of acting maliciously and

corruptly, Peirson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967), or of making grave errors of law or

procedure. Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Ammons

v. Baldwin, 705 F.2d 1445, 1446-48 (11th Cir. 1983) (judge entitled to immunity from a

claim that he verbally abused and humiliated plaintiff); Tanner v. Heise, 879 F.2d 572, 577-

78 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Regardless of the judge’s status in the judicial hierarchy, a judge has absolute

immunity for acts performed in the judge’s official capacity. O’Neill v. City of Lake

Oswego, 642 F.2d 367 (9th Cir. 1981) (pro tem municipal judge); Tanner, 879 F.2d at 577-78

(magistrate); Brewer v. Blackwell, 692 F.2d 387, 396 (11th Cir. 1982) (justice of the peace).

Accordingly, Defendants Thumma and Roberts are absolutely immune from suit and

must be dismissed.

Similarly, prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for their

conduct in “initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case” insofar as that conduct

is “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Buckley v.

Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 270 (1993) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430

Case 2:11-cv-00060-JAT--ECV Document 11 Filed 03/17/11 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

(1976)); Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486 (1991); Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1076. Plaintiff has

therefore failed to state a claim against Defendant Sponsel.

IV. Dismissal without Leave to Amend

As no Defendants now remain, the Court will dismiss the Amended Complaint.

Where amendment would be futile, there is no reason to prolong litigation by allowing

further amendments. Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir.2002);

Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293

(9th Cir.1983) (futile amendments should not be permitted). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s

claims cannot be cured by further amendment and will therefore dismiss the Amended

Complaint without leave to amend.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s March 4, 2011 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 7)

is denied as moot.

(2) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) and this action are dismissed

for failure to state a claim, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

(3) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the dismissal

for failure to state a claim may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

(4) The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of this

decision would not be taken in good faith.

DATED this 16th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00060-JAT--ECV Document 11 Filed 03/17/11 Page 4 of 4