Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00010/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00010-0/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

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Marc Nathaniel Epstein, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-0010-PHX-GMS (DKD)

ORDER

On January 3, 2012, Plaintiff Marc Nathaniel Epstein, who was not imprisoned when

he filed his lawsuit and is not currently confined, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. 3). The Court will dismiss the action.

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff may proceed without prepayment of costs or fees or the necessity of

giving security therefore. 

II. Section 1915(e)(2), 28 U.S.C.

When a plaintiff is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, 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. § 1915(e)(2). 

Case 2:12-cv-00010-GMS--DKD Document 4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 5
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 -

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)).

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, without leave to amend because the defects cannot be corrected.

Case 2:12-cv-00010-GMS--DKD Document 4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 5
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 -

III. Complaint

In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues the following Defendants: Arizona

Department of Corrections Director Charles Ryan, Gila County Attorney Daisy Flores, and

Gila County Deputy County Attorney Patti Wortman.

In Count One, Plaintiff alleges a violation of his due process rights, claiming that he

was denied counsel during the signing of his plea agreement. He contends that Defendant

Wortman presented a plea agreement to Plaintiff for signature, but Plaintiff’s criminal

defense attorney was not present when Plaintiff received and signed the plea agreement.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Flores and Wortman “bear responsibility for the abuse of due

process.”

In Count Two, Plaintiff contends that he was subjected to cruel and unusual

punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, because “[a]s a function of the previous

denial of counsel for [the] plea agreement.” He alleges that after he signed the plea

agreement, a superior court judge sentenced Plaintiff to 2.5 years’ imprisonment. Plaintiff

contends that Defendant Ryan “bears technical responsibility for Eighth Amendment

violations” because the sentence was “carried out under the authority [of Defendant] Ryan.”

In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks a “written and published apology” from

Defendant Flores, a monetary settlement, and his court costs.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

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

(1976). There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and therefore, a defendant’s

position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights

does not impose liability. Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S.

658, 691-92 (1978); Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v. List,

880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens

Case 2:12-cv-00010-GMS--DKD Document 4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 5
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 -

and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the

official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948.

Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant Flores or Defendant Ryan personally

participated in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, was aware of a deprivation

and failed to act, or formed policies that resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries. Moreover, Plaintiff

is incorrect that Defendant Ryan “bears technical responsibility” for incarcerating Plaintiff

pursuant to a sentence imposed by a superior court judge.

Thus, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Flores and Ryan.

B. Failure to State a Claim

A prisoner’s claim for damages cannot be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if “a

judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or

sentence,” unless the prisoner demonstrates that the conviction or sentence has previously

been reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-

87 (1994). See also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (“[A] state prisoner’s

§ 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)–no matter the relief sought (damages or

equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to

conviction or internal prison proceedings)–if success in that action would necessarily

demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.”). Plaintiff’s claims imply the

invalidity of his conviction and sentence,and his claims are therefore barred by Heck. 

Moreover, prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for damages 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) (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-

31 (1976)). Immunity extends to the plea bargaining process. Briley v. California, 564 F.2d

849, 856 (9th Cir. 1977). Thus, Defendants Flores and Wortman are protected by absolute

immunity.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3) is granted.

Case 2:12-cv-00010-GMS--DKD Document 4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 5
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 -

(2) The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim and the Clerk

of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

(3) 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 31st day of January, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00010-GMS--DKD Document 4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 5