Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01667/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01667-0/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Troy Moss, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff's Dep't, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-1667-PHX-SRB

ORDER

This action concerns the alleged violation of pro se Plaintiff Troy Moss' right of

access to the courts while in the custody of Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff's Department

during the pendency of a criminal action against him. At issue are two motions for summary

judgment, one filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 61), the other filed by Defendants Maricopa County

Sheriff's Department, Joseph M. Arpaio, C.A. Lillie, Romelia Rillera, and Aurelia Berry

(Doc. 54).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the instant action after he was indicted in Maricopa County Superior

Court but before he was ultimately convicted. The indictment contained seven felony counts,

all but one of which was eventually dismissed. (Defs.' Statement of Facts ("DSOF"), Ex. 8.)

On May 6, 2005, a jury convicted Plaintiff of the remaining count, Unlawful Use of Means

of Transportation, a class 5 felony, and a judgment of guilt was entered. (DSOF, Ex. 10.)

Plaintiff was sentenced to six years in prison. (DSOF, Ex. 10.)

Case 2:04-cv-01667-SRB-LOA Document 78 Filed 03/03/06 Page 1 of 6
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

Defendant Arpaio is the Sheriff of Maricopa County, and the remaining Defendants

work for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department in Inmate Legal Services.

2

Other aspects of the Complaint were dismissed by the Court on August 18, 2004

(Doc. 3).

- 2 -

At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an inmate in the custody of the

Maricopa County Sheriff's Department. Plaintiff represented himself at various points

throughout his criminal proceedings. On September 8, 2003, the state court judge granted

Plaintiff permission to proceed pro se, but revoked it about a month later. (DSOF, Ex. 2, 3.)

The state court judge also issued an order on November 17, 2003 denying all motions that

Plaintiff had filed while pro se. (DSOF, Ex. 4 at 2.) Plaintiff resumed self-representation

on March 10, 2004, but that status was revoked two months later. (DSOF, Ex. 6, 7 at 2.)

Plaintiff's third stint of self-representation began on the second day of his trial and continued

for its duration. (DSOF, Ex. 9.)

On August 11, 2004, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. The Complaint essentially alleges that Defendants1

 refused to file more than thirty of

Plaintiff's motions with the state trial court, thus violating his Sixth Amendment rights.2

 The

Complaint seeks only monetary damages. (Compl. at 7.)

On May 19, 2005, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff

did not respond, but filed his own Motion for Summary Judgment on June 10, 2005.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS

In a § 1983 action, a plaintiff seeking monetary damages arising out of an allegedly

unconstitutional conviction must prove that, 

the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged

by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to

make such a determination, or called into question by a federal court's

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Thus, when a

state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must

Case 2:04-cv-01667-SRB-LOA Document 78 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 of 6
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

- 3 -

consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily

imply the invalidation of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the

complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that

the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). See also

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82, 125 S. Ct. 1242, 1248 (2005) (affirming the holding

in Heck).

It is undisputed that Plaintiff's conviction has not been reversed on direct appeal,

expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal or called into question by

the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. It is also undisputed that a judgment in Plaintiff's

favor would "necessarily imply" the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. See Hunter v.

Henderson, 2006 WL 278877, at *4-*5 (D. Kan. Feb. 6, 2006) (dismissing a prisoner's §

1983 right of access claim because its success would "necessarily imply the invalidity of his

conviction or sentence"); Hardaway v. Rock County Sheriff Dep't, 2005 WL 522382, at *2

(W.D. Wis. March 3, 2005); Maron v. Schopen, 2001 WL 34376851, at *3 (W.D. Wis. May

24, 2001). See, e.g., Hoard v. Reddy, 175 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 1999). Accordingly,

Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.

But even assuming that this action is not barred by Heck, it must still be dismissed

because Plaintiff cannot prove that he suffered "actual injury . . . to contemplated or existing

litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim." Johnson v.

Kulongoski, 141 Fed. Appx. 645, 647 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,

351, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2180 (1996)). 

At the time Plaintiff filed his Complaint, he was not actually injured, but rather faced

the prospect of injury in the form of jail time or other punishment if he was convicted. Now

that he has been convicted, one can assume that he believes his injury to be the six-year

sentence that he received for the commission of his crime. However, Plaintiff cannot prove

that Defendants' alleged conduct caused his alleged injury. This is because the allegation of

injury stems exclusively from the allegation that Defendants failed to file Plaintiff's motions,

Case 2:04-cv-01667-SRB-LOA Document 78 Filed 03/03/06 Page 3 of 6
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

3

The dates in this column are drawn from the interrogatories Plaintiff propounded to

Defendants. (DSOF, Ex. 11-13.) These interrogatories list all of the motions that Plaintiff

seems to allege he gave to Defendants but were not filed.

4

The Maricopa County Superior Court docket for Plaintiff's criminal case is attached

to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as Exhibit 1.

- 4 -

and the evidence is undisputed that Defendants did in fact file all of Plaintiff's motions in a

timely manner with the state trial court.

The following table summarizes all of the motions that Plaintiff claims that

Defendants failed to file, together with the date that those motions were actually filed with

the state trial court:

Date Pl. Says

He Gave Doc.

to Defs.3

Title of Doc. Def. Who

Allegedly Refused

to File Doc.

Date Doc.

Filed in

Sup. Ct.4

9/16/03 Notice of Intent to Interview

All State Witnesses

Berry 9/23/03

9/16/03 Motion to Dismiss Count 3 -

Unlawful Use of Means of

Transportation

Berry 9/23/03

9/16/03 Motion to Suppress Berry 9/23/03

10/10/03 Motion to Appoint Handwriting

Analyst

Berry 10/15/03

12/10/03 Motion for Change of Judge Berry 12/11/03

12/15/03 Motion to Expedite Rule 11

Proceeding

Berry 12/16/03

2/2/04 Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 and

2

Berry 2/2/04

3/15/04 Motion of Supplemental Notice

of Defenses (Not Discovery)

Rillera 3/22/04

3/15/04 Motion for Notice of Defenses,

Witnesses and Evidence

Rillera 3/22/04

3/15/04 Motion to Compel Production

of Documents

Rillera 3/15/04

3/15/04 Request for Discovery Rillera 3/22/04

9/22/03 Motion to Compel Production

of Documents

Lillie 9/24/03

Case 2:04-cv-01667-SRB-LOA Document 78 Filed 03/03/06 Page 4 of 6
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 5

The Complaint contains no allegations of "false filing."

- 5 -

9/22/03 Motion to Appoint Investigator Lillie 9/24/03

9/25/03 Motion for Preservation of All

Evidence/ Motion to Compel

State to Provide Notice Before

Destruction of Evidence

Lillie 9/25/03

9/25/03 Motion for Omnibus Hearing Lillie 9/25/03

10/16/03 Supplemental Witness List of

Discovery

Lillie 10/17/03

10/17/03 Notice of Discovery Lillie 10/21/03

10/17/03 Motion to Sever Lillie 10/21/03

10/17/03 Motion to Amend Counts 4 and

5

Lillie 10/21/03

2/27/04 Motion to Proceed in Propria

Persona

Lillie 3/2/04

3/12/04 Motion to Suppress Lillie 3/15/04

3/12/04 Complaint for Special Action

Relief

Lillie Denied on

3/29/04

3/18/04 Motion to Suppress All

Evidence

Lillie 3/22/04

4/19/04 Notice of Defenses, Evidence

and Witness List

Lillie 4/19/04

4/19/04 Motion for Omnibus Hearing Lillie 4/19/04

4/19/04 Motion to Appoint Handwriting

Analyst

Lillie 4/19/04

4/19/04 Motion to Suppress Search

Warrant Evidence

Lillie 4/19/04

4/19/04 Motion to Suppress Accident

Reconstruction

Lillie 4/19/04

5/4/04 Motion to Amend Counts 1 and

2

Lillie 5/4/04

5/4/04 Motion to Dismiss Count 3 Lillie 5/4/04

5/4/04 Motion to Dismiss Counts 4 and

5

Lillie 5/4/04

In his motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff does not even appear to dispute that

those motions were filed, but instead claims that they were "falsely filed."5

 (Pl.'s Mot. for

Case 2:04-cv-01667-SRB-LOA Document 78 Filed 03/03/06 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

Summ. J. at 4.) The meaning of that statement is lost on the Court. To the extent that

Plaintiff is arguing that Defendants somehow altered or fabricated the contents of Plaintiff's

motions before filing them with the state trial court, that argument is rejected, as such

conclusory allegations, without more, are insufficient to create a material issue of fact.

Morgan v. United States, 2006 WL 285986, at *2 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2006) (citing AnheuserBusch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 345 (9th Cir. 1995)).

Because the only injury Plaintiff appears to allege is Defendants' failure to properly

file certain motions, and because Defendants have in fact properly filed all of those motions,

Plaintiff cannot prove that Defendants' alleged conduct caused his alleged injury. As such,

Berry, Rillera and Lilly are entitled to summary judgment on all claims against them.

The only allegation in the Complaint specific to Arpaio appears to be his failure to

ensure that Berry, Rillera and Lilly properly filed all of Plaintiff's motions. (Compl. at 4.)

However, even assuming that Arpaio could be held vicariously liable for the actions of Berry,

Rillera, and Lilly, those Defendants did properly file all of Plaintiff's motions, so no cause

of action against Arpaio can stand.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 61).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

(Doc. 54).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment against

Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants.

DATED this 2nd day of March, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01667-SRB-LOA Document 78 Filed 03/03/06 Page 6 of 6