Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01495/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01495-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Patricia Rodriguez, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Mesa, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1495 PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant City of Mesa has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. #12. The City argues that Plaintiff has failed to state

a claim against the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

will deny the City’s motion.

The Court may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) only if “it appears beyond

doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle

him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 (1957). In ruling on a motion to dismiss,

“all allegations are to be considered in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Miranda v.

Clark County, Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

The City does not dispute that Plaintiff has alleged a violation of her constitutional

rights. The only issue raised in the City’s motion is whether Plaintiff has adequately alleged

a factual basis to hold the City liable under § 1983. 

For the City to be held liable under § 1983, Plaintiff must show (1) that she possessed

a constitutional right of which she was deprived, (2) that the City had a policy, (3) that the

Case 2:06-cv-01495-DGC Document 18 Filed 08/25/06 Page 1 of 2
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 -

policy amounted to deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and (4) that the

policy was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. Anderson v. Warner, 451

F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2006). There must also be a direct causal link between the policy

or custom and the injury suffered by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff must be able to demonstrate that

the injury resulted from a permanent and well-settled practice. Id. A failure to train or

supervise can amount to a policy or custom sufficient to impose liability on the City. Id. 

Plaintiff has alleged that she possessed a constitutional right of which she was

deprived, that the deprivation occurred pursuant to a City policy that permitted accused sex

offenders to transport inmates unsupervised, that this policy constituted deliberate

indifference to her constitutional rights, and that the policy resulted in her molestation by

Defendant Driver. These allegations adequately state a claim under § 1983. The Court

cannot conclude beyond doubt that Plaintiff could prove no set of facts to support of her

claim. Conley, 355 U.S. at 45. 

IT IS ORDERED that the City’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #12) is denied.

DATED this 25th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01495-DGC Document 18 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 2