Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00472/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00472-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joshua Stauffer,

Plaintiff

-vsPayson Police Department,

Defendant.

CV-16-0472-PHX-SRB (JFM)

Report and Recommendation

re Screening of Amended Complaint

BACKGROUND

Issues – Following a dismissal without prejudice of his First Amended Complaint

with leave to amend, Plaintiff has filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 52). 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 undersigned concludes that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to 

adequately state a claim against the sole defendant and must be dismissed. This matter is 

heard by the undersigned on referral, and the conclusions reached herein would be 

dispositive. Accordingly, the undersigned makes this Report and Recommendation with 

regard to the Second Amended Complaint.

First Amended Complaint - On February 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed his original 

Complaint (Doc. 1), and prior to screening or an answer filed his First Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 7). 

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 

“has modified, destroyed, and covered up police reports, 

complaints, investigations, and evidence.” (Doc. 7 at 2.) Plaintiff 

further alleges that the mayor, judges, and county and town 

attorneys “have and continue to conspire against the Plaintiff.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and asks that the 

Court “order all false arrests be deemed dismissed with prejudice 

and all public and private databases wiped of any wrong doing.” (Id. 

at 4.) 

Case 2:16-cv-00472-SRB-JFM Document 53 Filed 02/21/17 Page 1 of 6
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

(Order 1/17/17, Doc. 51 at 2.) Prior to a screening order, Defendant Payson Police 

Department filed an Answer (Doc. 8), and eventually a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 29).

On January 17, 2017, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding that the 

Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to allege a claim under 

federal law or otherwise demonstrate a basis for jurisdiction. Alternatively, the Court 

found that Plaintiff failed to adequately state a claim. The First Amended Complaint 

was dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a second amended complaint within 

30 days. (Order 1/17/17, Doc. 51.) 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

On February 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 52). 

Plaintiff names a single defendant, the City of Payson, and in an attached 15 page 

Addendum factually alleges a string of improper arrests, traffic stops, impoundments, 

searches, destruction of evidence, prosecutions, and failures to properly respond to 

claims by various officers from the Payson Police Department, the Payson City Attorney, 

the Payson City Mayor, and a conspiracy between one officer and Plaintiff’s landlord to 

permit a search of Plaintiff’s home. 

The Second Amended Complaint asserts the following three counts, each of 

which do not include specific factual allegations, but merely reference the 15 page 

Addendum: (1) a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141, based on a pattern and practice of 

false arrest; (2) a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141, based on a pattern and practice of 

unlawful stops, searches and arrests; (3) a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy 

against rights) and 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law), all based 

on false imprisonment.

Standard on Screening – 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 claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that 

Case 2:16-cv-00472-SRB-JFM Document 53 Filed 02/21/17 Page 2 of 6
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

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 

defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(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 679. 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 681.

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)).

Pattern and Practice under § 14141 - Counts One and Two are asserted under 

42 U.S.C. § 14141. “Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 14141 only provides for 

a civil cause of action brought by the United States Attorney General. See 42 U.S.C. § 

14141(b). Section 14141, does not provide a private right of action.” Gonzales v. City of 

Clovis, 2012 WL 1292580, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2012) (citing Clark v. Upton, 2008 

WL 2025079, at *19 (E.D.Cal. May 9, 2008); and Evans v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. ex rel 

Case 2:16-cv-00472-SRB-JFM Document 53 Filed 02/21/17 Page 3 of 6
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

Cal. St. Univ. Stanislaus, 2006 WL 294800, at *2 (N.D.Cal. Feb.7, 2006)). Accordingly, 

Counts One and Two must be dismissed.

Deprivations of Constitutional Rights Under §§ 241 and 242 – Count Three 

asserts violations of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy to deprive of constitutional rights) and 

242 (deprivation of constitutional rights). “Plaintiff cannot bring suit against defendant 

for violation of these sections of Title 18 as they do not provide for a private right of 

action.” Hallal v. Mardel, 2016 WL 6494411, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2016)

(addressing inter alia 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242). “Only the United States as prosecutor 

can bring a complaint under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242 (the criminal analogue of 42 U.S.C. § 

1983).” Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989). Accordingly Count Three must 

be dismissed.

Allegations Regarding City of Payson – Assuming this Court could go so far as 

to liberally construe Plaintiff’s claims to be based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff fails to 

make any specific allegations against the City of Payson, as opposed to individual 

officials of the City. For each § 1983 claim Plaintiff alleges, he must state the following: 

(1) the specific constitutional right which he believes was violated; (2) the individual 

Defendant whose conduct violated that right; (3) the specific conduct which violated the 

right; and (4) the connection between the Defendant=s conduct and a specific injury 

Plaintiff suffered as a result of the conduct. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 

(1976). A local governmental unit may not be held responsible for the civil rights 

violations of its employees under a respondeat superior theory of liability. See Bd. of 

County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997); Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 

436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); and Fogel v. Collins, 531 F.3d 824, 834 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Therefore, a plaintiff must go beyond the respondeat superior theory of liability and 

demonstrate that the alleged constitutional deprivation was the product of a policy or 

custom of the local governmental unit, because municipal liability must rest on the 

actions of the municipality, and not the actions of the employees of the municipality. See 

Brown, 520 U.S. at 403; Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91; and Fogel, 531 F.3d at 834. Here, 

Case 2:16-cv-00472-SRB-JFM Document 53 Filed 02/21/17 Page 4 of 6
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

Plaintiff makes no allegations that his injuries resulted from a policy or custom of the 

City of Payson, as opposed to various employees of the City. 

Conclusions – Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned concludes that the 

Second Amended Complaint must be dismissed for failure to adequately state a claim, 

RECOMMENDATIONS

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Second Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 52) be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff be granted leave to file a 

third amended complaint within 30 days of the filing of the Court’s Order. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that if Plaintiff fails to file a third

amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter 

a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice.

EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have 

fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within 

which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file 

objections to any findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will be 

considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues, see United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc), and will constitute 

a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or 

Case 2:16-cv-00472-SRB-JFM Document 53 Filed 02/21/17 Page 5 of 6
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

judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Robbins v. 

Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Dated: February 21, 2017

16-0472o Order 17 02 17 re Screen Amended Complaint.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:16-cv-00472-SRB-JFM Document 53 Filed 02/21/17 Page 6 of 6