Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00094/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00094-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

JDDL-K 

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 

SKC 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Michael David Johnson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Scottsdale Police Department, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 15-0094-PHX-DGC (DMF) 

ORDER 

On January 20, 2015, Plaintiff Michael David Johnson, who was then confined in 

the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a March 3, 

2015 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint 

because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an 

amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

On March 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Party’s Change of Address, 

indicating he was no longer in custody, and on May 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed a non-prisoner 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. In an April 8, 2015 Order, the Court granted 

Plaintiff’s non-prisoner application to proceed and dismissed the Complaint with leave to 

amend for failure to state a claim. 

 On May 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 12). The 

Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 

. . . 

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 24
- 2 – 

JDDL-K

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 

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

 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 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, thedefendant-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)). 

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 2 of 24
- 3 – 

JDDL-K

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 

 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). 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 

because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 

to amend. 

II. First Amended Complaint 

 In his two-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Darren Hyman, 

Detective for the Scottsdale Police Department; Alan Rodbell, Chief of Police for the 

Scottsdale Police Department; and Joe Nichols and Melissa Palopoli, Sergeants for the 

Scottsdale Police Department, for alleged Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations. 

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages and costs. 

 Both Counts are based on the following allegations. 

 On May 20, 2014, Plaintiff was arrested in Phoenix by Defendant Hyman for 

violation of an order of protection issued by the Scottsdale City Court. After Plaintiff’s 

arrest, Hyman and Detective Leal conducted a search of Plaintiff’s vehicle in Plaintiff’s 

presence. The detectives seized a legal envelope “containing documents, evidence, case 

notes, research[,] and strategy for two civil cases [Plaintiff] had against the alleged 

victim” named in the order of protection. One of these cases was “against the order of 

protection.” Plaintiff informed Hyman of the contents of the envelope, and Hyman 

inspected it. Plaintiff told Hyman “you should not take that,” but Hyman seized it 

anyway. 

 Plaintiff alleges that he was representing himself in the two civil cases and he 

believes the documents are protected by attorney-client privilege. He further alleges that 

seizure of these documents “exceeded the requirements of the warrant.” According to 

Plaintiff, the warrant encompassed “indicia of residency, occupancy, cell phones, 

computer equipment, storage, devices, paper documents [and] all items that relate to the 

alleged charges.” Plaintiff alleges that the documents seized did not contain information 

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 3 of 24
- 4 – 

JDDL-K

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 

related to the charges; his residency was already established when Hyman allegedly 

visited Plaintiff’s apartment manager the week prior to Plaintiff’s arrest; and, although 

item #6 of the warrant asked for documents establishing a relationship between Plaintiff 

and the alleged victim named in the order of protection, the order of protection and its 

supporting documentation were enough to establish this relationship. 

 Plaintiff additionally alleges defects in the way the warrant was procured. He 

alleges that the warrant request used boiler-plate language from an unrelated case, and 

“the officer clearly typed over a prior existing search warrant request” because this and 

other court-order requests related to the warrant “contain[ed] information that is 

identifiable to other cases with another person’s personal information.” Plaintiff alleges 

that Hyman simply typed over prior requests and did not review them to verify the need 

for all the itemized information before presenting these requests to the judge. 

 Plaintiff alleges that he was released from custody on May 21, 2014, and while he 

was awaiting trial on June 23, 2014, he filed paperwork at the Scottsdale City Court, 

seeking a hearing to challenge the order of protection. At that time, he went to the 

counter of the Scottsdale Police Department’s satellite office and requested the return of 

his legal documents. Plaintiff alleges that the clerk told him to call the Sergeant. He 

alleges that he then called Hyman’s Sergeant, and she instructed him to call Hyman and 

told him that “it shouldn’t be a problem.” Plaintiff alleges that he called Hyman, and 

Hyman told him he would see what he could do, but he did not release Plaintiff’s 

envelope. 

 Plaintiff alleges that he had a hearing on August 6, 2014, for which he was 

“caught completely unprepared” due to his inability to recall the details of the case. 

Consequently, Plaintiff lost the hearing, and he filed a notice of appeal on August 8, 

2014. On the same day, Plaintiff wrote to the City of Scottsdale Court and the District 

Attorney’s Office, requesting the return of his envelope, but those requests were denied. 

Plaintiff alleges that the City of Scottsdale judge who denied his request was the same 

judge who presided over the hearing that Plaintiff lost. Plaintiff alleges that he thereafter 

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 4 of 24
- 5 – 

JDDL-K

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 

made requests for his documents to the Scottsdale Police Department internal affairs 

department, the Maricopa County Superior Court judge who had approved the warrant, 

and the Scottsdale Police Chief, but all of these requests were either ignored or denied, 

even though “none of these documents appear as evidence provided by the state in 

[Plaintiff’s] case.” Plaintiff alleges that on January 9, 2015, he reported his documents 

stolen to the Phoenix Police Department because they were taken in its jurisdiction, and 

the Phoenix Police Department referred his complaint to the Scottsdale Police 

Department. 

 Plaintiff alleges that his criminal case was to go to trial in February 2015, and he 

“took a plea with the understanding that if [he] could win [his] appeal on the order of 

protection” he would “rule 32 [his criminal] case later from the outside.” Plaintiff alleges 

that as a result of his plea, he served 7.5 months in jail, one week in prison, and he now 

has two felony counts of aggravated harassment for violating the order of protection. 

Plaintiff further alleges that he lost his appeal on the order of protection, and he claims 

that the Scottsdale Police Department deliberately withheld his documents to keep him 

from being able to overturn the order of protection decision. He alleges that Hyman 

showed up to testify against him at the order of protection hearing on August 6, 2014, 

even though he had not been involved in the original case. 

 Plaintiff alleges that the seizure and retention of his documents violated his Fourth 

Amendment rights to be free of unreasonable search and seizure and his Fifth and 

Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process. He claims he was injured because he lost 

his hearing and appeal, he was sentenced and incarcerated, and he still does not have his 

property. 

III. Failure to State a Claim

 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 

(2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities 

and (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th 

Cir. 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 5 of 24
- 6 – 

JDDL-K

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 

1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific 

injury as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an 

affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 

423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 

 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 

v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a 

liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the 

claim that were not initially pled. Id. 

 A. Defendant Rodbell 

 For an individual to be liable in his individual capacity, “[a] plaintiff must allege 

facts, not simply conclusions, that show that the individual was personally involved in the 

deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 

1998). Further, there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, so a defendant’s 

position as the supervisor of someone who allegedly violated a plaintiff’s constitutional 

rights does not make him liable. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691; 

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). A supervisor in his 

individual capacity “is only liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the 

supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed 

to act to prevent them.” Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. Alternatively, for an individual to be 

liable in his official capacity, a plaintiff must allege injuries resulting from a policy, 

practice, or custom of the governmental entity for which that individual exercises final 

policy-making authority. See Monell, 436 U.S. 694. 

 Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Rodbell. Plaintiff’s only 

allegation against Rodbell is that Plaintiff wrote to “the Chief of the Scottsdale Police 

Department” seeking the return of his documents, and his request was either ignored or 

denied. This vague assertion is not sufficient to show that Rodbell was personally 

involved in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights, or that, as a supervisor, he participated in 

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 6 of 24
- 7 – 

JDDL-K

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 

violations against Plaintiff, directed anyone else to do so, or knew of any such violations 

and failed to act to prevent them. Additionally, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts showing 

that his injuries ensued from a policy, practice, or custom observed within the City of 

Scottsdale Police Department. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against 

Rodbell in either his individual or official capacity, and he will be dismissed. 

 B. Defendants Nichols and Palopoli 

 Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendants Nichols and Palopoli. Other than 

identifying Nichols and Palopoli as Sergeants for the Scottsdale Police Department, 

Plaintiff does not mention them anywhere in the body of the Complaint. As noted above, 

there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, so a defendant’s position as the 

supervisor of someone who allegedly violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not 

make him liable. Even assuming that Palopoli was the Sergeant who allegedly told 

Plaintiff to contact Hyman for the return of his documents and that getting them back 

should not be a problem,1

 these facts do not support a claim against her. Merely referring 

Plaintiff to the person she thought could return his documents does not show that Palopli 

violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim 

against either Nichols or Palopoli, and they will be dismissed. 

C. Count One 

 Plaintiff alleges a Fourth Amendment violation in Count One. The Fourth 

Amendment protects the “right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, 

and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” and decrees that “no warrants 

shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly 

describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. 

amend. IV. There are, however, exceptions to the warrant requirement. See, e.g., United 

States v. Jenkins, 876 F.2d 1085, 1088 (2d Cir. 1989) (consent); United States v. Soussi, 

29 F.3d 565, 571-72 (10th Cir. 1994) (consent); Roberts v. Spielman, 643 F.3d 899, 905 

 

1

 Plaintiff refers to the Sergeant who told him this as “she,” presumably referring to Defendant Palopoli, or at least ruling out Defendant Nichols. 

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 7 of 24
- 8 – 

JDDL-K

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 

(11th Cir. 2011) (exigent circumstances); and United States v. Hudson, 100 F.3d 1409, 

1420 (9th Cir. 1996) (plain view). A seizure of property occurs when there is some 

meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property. Soldal 

v. Cook County, Ill., 506 U.S. 56, 61 (1992) (citation and quotation omitted). 

 Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim rests on assertions that (1) the seizure of his 

documents exceeded the scope of the warrant, and (2) the warrant itself was improperly 

procured. In its March 3, 2015 Order dismissing Plaintiff’s original Complaint, the Court 

addressed these same assertions and concluded that Plaintiff had failed to provide 

sufficient factual allegations concerning what prompted the search, what the warrant 

covered, where and how Plaintiff’s personal documents were discovered, and what 

charges ensued to show that the alleged seizure violated the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff 

fails to cure these deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint. For example, Plaintiff’s 

allegations now suggest that officers Hyman and Leal conducted a warranted search of 

Plaintiff’s vehicle in Phoenix at the same time they apprehended him for violating an 

order of protection. But the added allegations about Plaintiff’s arrest and order of 

protection still do not show what prompted the warrant or on what charges the warrant 

was based. Plaintiff alleges, in part, that the warrant sought “indicia of residency, 

occupancy, cell phones, computer equipment, storage, devices, paper documents [and] all 

items that relate to the alleged charges.” But absent virtually any facts about these 

“alleged charges,” Plaintiff fails to show that the seizure of his documents was outside 

the warrant’s scope. The Court’s review of Maricopa County Superior Court records 

shows that on November 5, 2014, Plaintiff pled guilty in case # CR2014-124171-001 to 

taking the identity of another and aggravated harassment, and that additional charges of 

credit card theft and fraud were dismissed.2

 This case stemmed from crimes that 

allegedly occurred from late September to early December 2013. Plaintiff additionally 

pled guilty in case # CR2014-132003-001 to a charge of aggravated harassment, and 

 

2 See https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/case Info.asp?caseNumber=CR2014-124171 (last visited May 12, 2015). 

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 8 of 24
- 9 – 

JDDL-K

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 

three additional charges of aggravated harassment were dismissed.3 This case stemmed 

from crimes that allegedly occurred on June 12 and June 30, 2014. Although Plaintiff 

alleges that none of the documents seized from his vehicle on May 20, 2014 were used as 

evidence “by the state in [Plaintiff’s] case,” it is not clear what case Plaintiff refers to. 

Clearly, the seized documents could not have been used as evidence in the second case 

because the alleged crimes did not even take place until after Hyman conducted the 

search. But this does not show that these documents were outside the scope of the 

charges in the first case to which it appears the warrant may have pertained. Moreover, 

the mere allegation that the seized documents were not used at trial does not show that 

they were beyond the scope of the warrant. Absent any facts about the charges alleged in 

the warrant, Plaintiff fails plausibly to show that Hyman’s seizure of his documents 

exceeded its scope. 

 Plaintiff also fails to allege sufficient facts to show that the alleged warrant was 

improperly procured. Plaintiff vaguely asserts that parts of the documents Hyman put 

forth in support of the warrant were “boiler plated from a different, unrelated case” or 

contained information “identifiable to other cases with another person’s personal 

information,” and he alleges that this shows that Hyman “misled the court.” But it is not 

clear from these facts what information was allegedly “boiler plated” or how the facts 

Hyman put forth to procure the warrant were misleading as applied to Plaintiff. Plaintiff 

also alleges that Hyman failed to review the itemized information he allegedly used from 

other warrant requests to fit the specific requirements in his case, but Plaintiff does not 

identify any requests that he believes were overly broad. 

 For the above reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a Fourth Amendment claim in Count 

One, and this claim will be dismissed.4

 

3 See https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/ CriminalCourtCases/ caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2014-132003(last visited May 12, 2015). 

4

 Even if Plaintiff could allege sufficient facts to state a Fourth Amendment claim, 

such a claim may nonetheless be barred if this violation could, in some way, invalidate any of Plaintiff’s criminal convictions, unless or until those convictions are overturned. 

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 9 of 24
- 10 – 

JDDL-K

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 

D. Count Two 

 Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim in Count Two is based on the 

alleged failures or refusals of Defendants to return his documents after they were 

allegedly unlawfully seized. Plaintiff also appears to allege due process violations with 

respect to his order of protection because he alleges that, without those documents, he 

was unprepared for a hearing on that order and is unable effectively to appeal that case. 

 1. Documents 

 Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants failed to return his documents may support 

a common law tort claim or a claim for conversion of personal property, but they do not 

support a federal constitutional claim. In Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541 (1981), the 

Supreme Court held that due process is not violated when a state employee negligently 

deprives an individual of property, as long as the state makes available a meaningful 

post-deprivation remedy. The logic of Parratt has been extended to intentional 

unauthorized deprivations of property by state actors. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 

533 (1984). As with negligent deprivations, where a state makes available a meaningful 

post-deprivation remedy, such as a common-law tort suit against a state employee for 

intentional unauthorized deprivations, a federal due process claim is precluded. Hudson, 

468 U.S. at 534-35; King v. Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff has 

not alleged that he has been deprived of an available post-deprivation remedy for seeking 

the return of his property. Even if Scottsdale Police personnel, the City Attorney’s 

Office, and the Scottsdale City Court have effectively deprived Plaintiff of any direct 

means to recover his property due to their repeated denials or failures to respond to 

 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). Plaintiff appears to suggest that he only pled guilty to certain criminal charges because he believed that after his legal documents were returned, he could “rule 32” that case. At this point, however, Plaintiff has not alleged facts plausibly showing that a Fourth Amendment violation, if it occurred, would invalidate any of his criminal convictions. Thus, it is not entirely clear that Heck applies. 

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 10 of 24
- 11 – 

JDDL-K

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’s requests, this does not mean that Plaintiff is left without an effective postdeprivation means of relief. Plaintiff alleges that he already reported his documents 

stolen to the Phoenix Police Department, and it referred his complaint to the Scottsdale 

Police Department. Moreover, to the extent that the Police Departments fail to provide 

relief, Plaintiff has an available civil remedy in the Arizona state courts. See Howland v. 

State, 818 P.2d 1169, 1172-73 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991) (state prison officials’ confiscation 

of and failure to return prisoner’s personal property states a claim for conversion under 

Arizona law). 

 2. Order of Protection Hearing 

 Insofar as Plaintiff attempts to assert a due process violation on the grounds that 

the Scottsdale Police Department “deliberately and intentionally” impaired his ability to 

represent himself in his order of protection hearing and appeal, this claim also fails. As 

an initial matter, these allegations are too speculative to state a claim. Plaintiff vaguely 

alleges that the seized documents were not required “in the case against [Plaintiff],” 

purportedly showing that they were seized and kept solely as a way to interfere with 

Plaintiff’s ability to litigate his order of protection case. Plaintiff also alleges that Hyman 

showed up to testify at the order of protection hearing, even though Hyman “was never a 

part of that pre-existing case.” These bare assertions are insufficient, however, to show 

that Hyman or any other state actors interfered with Plaintiff receiving due process. 

Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff believes he was denied due process in his order 

of protection proceedings, the proper place to raise those objections was at those 

proceedings or on appeal in that case. This Court is not a court of appeals for state court 

decisions and must decline jurisdiction whenever it is “in essence being called upon to 

review the state court decision.” Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 

1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Because district courts lack power to hear direct appeals 

from state court decisions, they must decline jurisdiction whenever they are “in essence 

being called upon to review the state court decision.”) (applying the Rooker–Feldman

doctrine; see Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Ct. of 

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 11 of 24
- 12 – 

JDDL-K

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 

App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)); see, e.g., Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th 

Cir.2003) (“If a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision 

by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that decision, 

Rooker–Feldman bars subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court.”). 

 For all of these reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a Fourteenth Amendment due 

process claim in Count Two, and this claim will be dismissed. 

IV. Leave to Amend

 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff 

may submit a second amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The 

Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a second 

amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may 

strike the second amended complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to 

Plaintiff. 

 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “Second 

Amended Complaint.” The second amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in 

its entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 

Complaint or First Amended Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one 

claim per count. 

 A second amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint and First 

Amended 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 will treat the original Complaint and First Amended Complaint as 

nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the 

original complaint or first amended complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was 

dismissed without prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a second amended complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 

. . . 

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 12 of 24
- 13 – 

JDDL-K

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 

V. Warnings

A. Release

 If Plaintiff is released while this case remains pending, and the filing fee has not 

been paid in full, Plaintiff must, within 30 days of his release, either (1) notify the Court 

that he intends to pay the unpaid balance of his filing fee within 120 days of his release or 

(2) file a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis. Failure to comply may 

result in dismissal of this action. 

B. Address Changes

 Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with 

Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion 

for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in 

dismissal of this action. 

C. Copies

 Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See

LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further 

notice to Plaintiff. 

D. Possible “Strike”

 Because the First Amended Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a 

claim, if Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint correcting the deficiencies 

identified in this Order, the dismissal may count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” 

provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring 

a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the 

prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, 

brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the 

grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

. . . 

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 13 of 24
- 14 – 

JDDL-K

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 

E. Possible Dismissal

 If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including 

these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 

F.2d at 1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any 

order of the Court). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) is dismissed for failure to state a 

claim. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a second amended 

complaint in compliance with this Order. 

 (2) If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint within 30 days, the 

Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action 

with prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). 

(3) The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a court-approved form for filing a 

civil rights complaint by a prisoner. 

Dated this 15th day of May, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 14 of 24
Revised 5/1/2013 1

Instructions for a Prisoner Filing a Civil Rights Complaint 

in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

1. Who May Use This Form. The civil rights complaint form is designed to help incarcerated

persons prepare a complaint seeking relief for a violation of their federal civil rights. These

complaints typically concern, but are not limited to, conditions of confinement. This form should

not be used to challenge your conviction or sentence. If you want to challenge a state conviction

or sentence, you should file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus by a

person in state custody. If you want to challenge a federal conviction or sentence, you should file

a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate sentence in the federal court that entered the judgment.

2. The Form. Local Rule of Civil Procedure (LRCiv) 3.4(a) provides that complaints by

incarcerated persons must be filed on the court-approved form. The form must be typed or

neatly handwritten. The form must be completely filled in to the extent applicable. All questions

must be answered clearly and concisely in the appropriate space on the form. If needed, you may

attach additional pages, but no more than fifteen additional pages, of standard letter-sized paper.

You must identify which part of the complaint is being continued and number all pages. If you do

not fill out the form properly, you will be asked to submit additional or corrected information, which

may delay the processing of your action. You do not need to cite law. 

3. Your Signature. You must tell the truth and sign the form. If you make a false statement of a

material fact, you may be prosecuted for perjury.

4. The Filing and Administrative Fees. The total fees for this action are $400.00 ($350.00 filing fee

plus $50.00 administrative fee). If you are unable to immediately pay the fees, you may request

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Please review the “Information for Prisoners Seeking Leave

to Proceed with a (Non-Habeas) Civil Action in Federal Court In Forma Pauperis Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915” for additional instructions.

5. Original and Judge’s Copy. You must send an original plus one copy of your complaint and of

any other documents submitted to the Court. You must send one additional copy to the Court if you

wish to have a file-stamped copy of the document returned to you. All copies must be identical to

the original. Copies may be legibly handwritten.

6. Where to File. You should file your complaint in the division where you were confined when

your rights were allegedly violated. See LRCiv 5.1(a) and 77.1(a). If you were confined in

Maricopa, Pinal, Yuma, La Paz, or Gila County, file in the Phoenix Division. If you were confined

in Apache, Navajo, Coconino, Mohave, or Yavapai County, file in the Prescott Division. If you

were confined in Pima, Cochise, Santa Cruz, Graham, or Greenlee County, file in the Tucson

Division. Mail the original and one copy of the complaint with the $400 filing and

administrative fees or the application to proceed in forma pauperis to:

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 15 of 24
2

Phoenix & Prescott Divisions: OR Tucson Division:

U.S. District Court Clerk U.S. District Court Clerk

U.S. Courthouse, Suite 130 U.S. Courthouse, Suite 1500

401 West Washington Street, SPC 10 405 West Congress Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2119 Tucson, Arizona 85701-5010

7. Change of Address. You must immediately notify the Court and the defendants in writing of any

change in your mailing address. Failure to notify the Court of any change in your mailing

address may result in the dismissal of your case.

8. Certificate of Service. You must furnish the defendants with a copy of any document you submit

to the Court (except the initial complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis). Each

original document (except the initial complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis) must

include a certificate of service on the last page of the document stating the date a copy of the

document was mailed to the defendants and the address to which it was mailed. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 5(a), (d). Any document received by the Court that does not include a certificate of service may

be stricken. A certificate of service should be in the following form:

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed

this (month, day, year) to:

Name: 

Address: 

 Attorney for Defendant(s)

 

(Signature)

9. Amended Complaint. If you need to change any of the information in the initial complaint, you

must file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must be written on the court-approved

civil rights complaint form. You may file one amended complaint without leave (permission) of

Court before any defendant has answered your original complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). After

any defendant has filed an answer, you must file a motion for leave to amend and lodge (submit) a

proposed amended complaint. LRCiv 15.1. In addition, an amended complaint may not incorporate

by reference any part of your prior complaint. LRCiv 15.1(a)(2). Any allegations or defendants

not included in the amended complaint are considered dismissed. All amended complaints are

subject to screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act; screening your amendment will take

additional processing time.

10. Exhibits. You should not submit exhibits with the complaint or amended complaint. Instead,

the relevant information should be paraphrased. You should keep the exhibits to use to support or

oppose a motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment, or at trial.

11. Letters and Motions. It is generally inappropriate to write a letter to any judge or the staff of

any judge. The only appropriate way to communicate with the Court is by filing a written pleading

or motion.

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 16 of 24
3

12. Completing the Civil Rights Complaint Form.

HEADING:

1. Your Name. Print your name, prison or inmate number, and institutional mailing address

on the lines provided.

2. Defendants. If there are four or fewer defendants, print the name of each. If you name

more than four defendants, print the name of the first defendant on the first line, write the

words “and others” on the second line, and attach an additional page listing the names of all

of the defendants. Insert the additional page after page 1 and number it “1-A” at the bottom.

3. Jury Demand. If you want a jury trial, you must write “JURY TRIAL DEMANDED” in

the space below “CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT BY A PRISONER.” Failure to do so may

result in the loss of the right to a jury trial. A jury trial is not available if you are seeking

only injunctive relief.

Part A. JURISDICTION:

1. Nature of Suit. Mark whether you are filing the complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

for state, county, or city defendants; “Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents” for

federal defendants; or “other.” If you mark “other,” identify the source of that authority. 

2. Location. Identify the institution and city where the alleged violation of your rights

occurred. 

3. Defendants. Print all of the requested information about each of the defendants in the

spaces provided. If you are naming more than four defendants, you must provide the

necessary information about each additional defendant on separate pages labeled “2-A,” “2-

B,” etc., at the bottom. Insert the additional page(s) immediately behind page 2.

Part B. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS:

You must identify any other lawsuit you have filed in either state or federal court while you

were a prisoner. Print all of the requested information about each lawsuit in the spaces provided.

If you have filed more than three lawsuits, you must provide the necessary information about each

additional lawsuit on a separate page. Label the page(s) as “2-A,” “2-B,” etc., at the bottom of the

page and insert the additional page(s) immediately behind page 2.

Part C. CAUSE OF ACTION:

You must identify what rights each defendant violated. The form provides space to allege

three separate counts (one violation per count). If you are alleging more than three counts, you

must provide the necessary information about each additional count on a separate page. Number

the additional pages “5-A,” “5-B,” etc., and insert them immediately behind page 5. Remember that

you are limited to a total of fifteen additional pages.

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 17 of 24
4

1. Counts. You must identify which civil right was violated. You may allege the violation

of only one civil right per count.

2. Issue Involved. Check the box that most closely identifies the issue involved in your

claim. You may check only one box per count. If you check the box marked “Other,” you

must identify the specific issue involved.

3. Supporting Facts. After you have identified which civil right was violated, you must state

the supporting facts. Be as specific as possible. You must state what each individual

defendant did to violate your rights. If there is more than one defendant, you must identify

which defendant did what act. You also should state the date(s) on which the act(s)

occurred, if possible.

4. Injury. State precisely how you were injured by the alleged violation of your rights. 

5. Administrative Remedies. You must exhaust any available administrative remedies

before you file a civil rights complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Consequently, you should

disclose whether you have exhausted the inmate grievance procedures or administrative

appeals for each count in your complaint. If the grievance procedures were not available for

any of your counts, fully explain why on the lines provided.

Part D. REQUEST FOR RELIEF:

Print the relief you are seeking in the space provided. 

SIGNATURE:

You must sign your name and print the date you signed the complaint. Failure to sign the

complaint will delay the processing of your action. Unless you are an attorney, you may not bring

an action on behalf of anyone but yourself.

FINAL NOTE

You should follow these instructions carefully. Failure to do so may result in your complaint

being stricken or dismissed. All questions must be answered concisely in the proper space on the

form. If you need more space, you may attach no more than fifteen additional pages. But the form

must be completely filled in to the extent applicable. If you attach additional pages, be sure to

identify which section of the complaint is being continued and number the pages.

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 18 of 24
Revised 5/1/2013 1 550/555

Name and Prisoner/Booking Number

Place of Confinement

Mailing Address

City, State, Zip Code

(Failure to notify the Court of your change of address may result in dismissal of this action.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

)

 , )

(Full Name of Plaintiff) Plaintiff, )

)

 vs. ) CASE NO. 

) (To be supplied by the Clerk)

(1) , )

(Full Name of Defendant) )

(2) , )

) CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

(3) ,) BY A PRISONER

)

(4) , ) G Original Complaint

Defendant(s). ) G First Amended Complaint

G Check if there are additional Defendants and attach page 1-A listing them. ) G Second Amended Complaint

A. JURISDICTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to:

G 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a); 42 U.S.C. § 1983

G 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

G Other: .

2. Institution/city where violation occurred: .

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 19 of 24
2

B. DEFENDANTS

1. Name of first Defendant: . The first Defendant is employed as:

at .

(Position and Title) (Institution)

2. Name of second Defendant: . The second Defendant is employed as:

at .

(Position and Title) (Institution)

3. Name of third Defendant: . The third Defendant is employed as:

at .

(Position and Title) (Institution)

4. Name of fourth Defendant: . The fourth Defendant is employed as:

at .

(Position and Title) (Institution)

If you name more than four Defendants, answer the questions listed above for each additional Defendant on a separate page.

C. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS

1. Have you filed any other lawsuits while you were a prisoner? G Yes G No

2. If yes, how many lawsuits have you filed? . Describe the previous lawsuits:

a. First prior lawsuit:

1. Parties: v. 

2. Court and case number: .

3. Result: (Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?)

.

b. Second prior lawsuit:

1. Parties: v. 

2. Court and case number: .

3. Result: (Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?)

.

c. Third prior lawsuit:

1. Parties: v. 

2. Court and case number: .

3. Result: (Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?)

.

If you filed more than three lawsuits, answer the questions listed above for each additional lawsuit on a separate page.

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 20 of 24
3

D. CAUSE OF ACTION

COUNT I

1. State the constitutional or other federal civil right that was violated: 

.

2. Count I. Identify the issue involved. Check only one. State additional issues in separate counts.

G Basic necessities G Mail G Access to the court G Medical care 

G Disciplinary proceedings G Property G Exercise of religion G Retaliation

G Excessive force by an officer G Threat to safety G Other: .

3. Supporting Facts. State as briefly as possible the FACTS supporting Count I. Describe exactly what each

Defendant did or did not do that violated your rights. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal

authority or arguments.

.

4. Injury. State how you were injured by the actions or inactions of the Defendant(s).

.

5. Administrative Remedies:

a. Are there any administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available at your

institution? G Yes G No

b. Did you submit a request for administrative relief on Count I? G Yes G No

c. Did you appeal your request for relief on Count I to the highest level? G Yes G No

d. If you did not submit or appeal a request for administrative relief at any level, briefly explain why you

did not. 

.

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 21 of 24
4

COUNT II

1. State the constitutional or other federal civil right that was violated: 

.

2. Count II. Identify the issue involved. Check only one. State additional issues in separate counts.

G Basic necessities G Mail G Access to the court G Medical care 

G Disciplinary proceedings G Property G Exercise of religion G Retaliation

G Excessive force by an officer G Threat to safety G Other: .

3. Supporting Facts. State as briefly as possible the FACTS supporting Count II. Describe exactly what each

Defendant did or did not do that violated your rights. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal

authority or arguments.

.

4. Injury. State how you were injured by the actions or inactions of the Defendant(s).

.

5. Administrative Remedies.

a. Are there any administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available at your

institution? G Yes G No

b. Did you submit a request for administrative relief on Count II? G Yes G No

c. Did you appeal your request for relief on Count II to the highest level? G Yes G No

d. If you did not submit or appeal a request for administrative relief at any level, briefly explain why you

did not. 

.

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 22 of 24
5

COUNT III

1. State the constitutional or other federal civil right that was violated: 

.

2. Count III. Identify the issue involved. Check only one. State additional issues in separate counts.

G Basic necessities G Mail G Access to the court G Medical care 

G Disciplinary proceedings G Property G Exercise of religion G Retaliation

G Excessive force by an officer G Threat to safety G Other: .

3. Supporting Facts. State as briefly as possible the FACTS supporting Count III. Describe exactly what each

Defendant did or did not do that violated your rights. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal

authority or arguments.

.

4. Injury. State how you were injured by the actions or inactions of the Defendant(s).

.

5. Administrative Remedies.

a. Are there any administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available at your

institution? G Yes G No

b. Did you submit a request for administrative relief on Count III? G Yes G No

c. Did you appeal your request for relief on Count III to the highest level? G Yes G No

d. If you did not submit or appeal a request for administrative relief at any level, briefly explain why you

did not. 

.

If you assert more than three Counts, answer the questions listed above for each additional Count on a separate page.

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 23 of 24
6

E. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

State the relief you are seeking:

.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on 

DATE SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF

(Name and title of paralegal, legal assistant, or

other person who helped prepare this complaint)

(Signature of attorney, if any)

(Attorney’s address & telephone number)

ADDITIONAL PAGES

All questions must be answered concisely in the proper space on the form. If you need more space, you may attach

no more than fifteen additional pages. But the form must be completely filled in to the extent applicable. If you

attach additional pages, be sure to identify which section of the complaint is being continued and number all pages.

Case 2:15-cv-00094-DGC-DMF Document 14 Filed 05/18/15 Page 24 of 24