Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01182/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01182-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Mary D'Ambrosio, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

John Rea, Judge; Unknown Zwillinger; 

County of Maricopa; Unknown Greek, 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-1182-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 On June 6, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) before it is allowed to be served. Pursuant 

to that screening Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to 

amend. 

I. Amended Complaint

 An 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 treats the original Complaint as 

nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Thus, the Court will consider only those claims 

raised in the Amended Complaint against only those Defendants named in the Amended 

Complaint. 

Except with respect to Tara Spalding and Maricopa County, Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. With the exception of 

Case 2:12-cv-01182-GMS Document 6 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

such claims against Tara Reid and Maricopa County the Amended Complaint is therefore 

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

II. Dismissal of All Claims Except Those Stated Against Tara Spalding and 

Maricopa County

 In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states that “pursuant to official policy, usage 

and practice, “guards caused injury” to her causing damage to various body parts and 

causing her to be placed in isolation. She alleges that as a disabled vulnerable adult she 

was discriminated against and that as a seriously mentally ill person she was abused. She 

claims the guards were deliberately indifferent to her health and rights in light of her age 

and medical record. Plaintiff appears to complain about acts committed by Tara 

Spalding, apparently a corrections officer in the Maricopa County Jail system. She 

further seeks relief from “these [unidentified] entities” because no large print law books 

are available to aid me in “these five years of litigation,” making “these defendants” 

liable for non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. She also complains 

of how her previous litigation, apparently involving these same matters, was handled and 

dismissed within the state court system. 

 Reading the Plaintiff’s complaint liberally, as is required, it appears that she 

attempts to state a § 1983 claim against Corrections Officer Tara Reid and Maricopa 

County. Nevertheless, to the extent that her complaint seeks to assert claims against the 

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge who previously heard this matter, Judge John 

Rea, or other judges in the Arizona appellate court system, it fails to overcome the 

deficiencies previously identified in this Court’s first order of dismissal. Further, the 

complaint fails to identify whom Plaintiff seeks to sue for violating the Americans with 

Disabilities Act and further fails to plead sufficient facts necessary to make any other 

claim plausible. 

 This Court previously noted Plaintiff’s failure to clearly set forth claims against 

identifiable defendants and allowed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint so that she 

could correct this error. With the possible exception of Defendant Tara Spalding and 

Case 2:12-cv-01182-GMS Document 6 Filed 08/14/12 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

Maricopa County for a § 1983 claim for excessive force and/or cruel and unusual 

punishment claim Plaintiff has failed to do so. Although this claim may have already 

been resolved due to the state court proceedings, the Court will allow the Plaintiff to 

pursue only a claim for Tara Spalding and Maricopa County based on excessive force 

and/or cruel and unusual punishment. Any other claim which Plaintiff seeks to assert in 

her amended complaint is dismissed. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 5) may 

state a claim as to Defendants Tara Spalding and Maricopa County. Such a claim or 

claims may proceed. All other claims set forth in the Amended Complaint are dismissed. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may serve the Summons and 

Amended Complaint upon the two remaining defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff is further directed to familiarize herself with the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules for the District of Arizona which can be found 

on the Court’s website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. 

 Dated this 13th day of August, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-01182-GMS Document 6 Filed 08/14/12 Page 3 of 3