Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00653/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00653-1/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

Jeffery T. Hausauer,

Plaintiff,

v. 

City of Mesa, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-20-00653-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jeffery T. Hausauer’s First Amended 

Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff’s original Complaint (Doc. 1) was screened 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismissed. (Doc. 6.) The FAC is also subject to 

screening and will be dismissed in part. Because portions of the FAC survive the screening, 

the Court will allow service of the FAC.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a complaint is subject to dismissal if it contains 

claims that are “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted,” or that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. Additionally, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must 

contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 

relief.” Id. Although 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, 

Case 2:20-cv-00653-DWL Document 8 Filed 06/17/20 Page 1 of 4
- 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

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.

The Ninth Circuit has instructed that courts must “construe pro se filings liberally.” 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se litigant] 

‘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)). Conclusory and vague 

allegations, however, 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). A liberal interpretation may not supply 

essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled. Id.

“If a pleading can be cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled 

to an opportunity to amend before the final dismissal of the action.” Ball v. Cty. of 

Maricopa, 2017 WL 1833611, *1 (D. Ariz. 2017) (concluding that complaint could not be 

amended to state a cognizable claim and dismissing with prejudice).

BACKGROUND

On April 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Complaint (Doc. 1) and applied for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). On May 26, 2020, the Court granted leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis and dismissed the Complaint. (Doc. 6.)

On June 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed the FAC. (Doc. 7.) The FAC includes the same 

four counts as the original Complaint: (1) deliberate indifference to medical needs, in 

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (id. at 4-8); (2) a Fourteenth Amendment claim of 

Case 2:20-cv-00653-DWL Document 8 Filed 06/17/20 Page 2 of 4
- 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

“coercion” (id. at 8-9); (3) a common law tort claim for “assault and battery as a result of 

coercion” (id. at 9-10); and (4) a violation of the right to equal protection under the 

Fourteenth Amendment (id. at 10-12). The FAC also includes a separate count “against 

the City of Mesa and Police Department.” (Id. at 12-14.)

ANALYSIS

The Fourteenth Amendment “coercion” claim was dismissed with prejudice (Doc. 

6 at 5), so it was improper for Plaintiff to reassert this claim in the FAC. It is again 

dismissed.

The Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim was dismissed from the original 

Complaint without prejudice because, although Plaintiff alleged that his medical conditions 

are disabilities that make him a member of a protected class, he failed to “allege that any 

Defendant acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against him based on his

membership in a protected class.” (Id. at 4.) The FAC alleges, in a conclusory manner, 

that Defendants targeted Plaintiff due to his “status of the protected senior citizen class” 

(Doc. 7 at 1), but this conclusory allegation will not suffice in the absence of any facts 

suggesting that Defendants’ actions were based on Plaintiff’s age. It does not appear that 

Plaintiff can allege facts demonstrating an intent or purpose to discriminate against him 

based on his membership in a protected class. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment equal 

protection claim is dismissed with prejudice.

The remaining claims, liberally construed, are not subject to dismissal at the 

screening stage, without prejudice to the Defendants’ ability to file a motion to dismiss 

under Rule 12(b)(6).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Fourteenth Amendment “coercion” and equal protection 

claims are dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the FAC may be served. Service by waiver or 

service of the summons and complaint shall be at government expense on the defendant by 

the U.S. Marshal or his authorized representative. The Court directs the following: 

Case 2:20-cv-00653-DWL Document 8 Filed 06/17/20 Page 3 of 4
- 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

1) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the FAC (Doc. 7), 

this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for the Defendants. 

2) Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court within 

30 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not 

provide service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order. 

3) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or complete 

service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant within 90 days of the filing 

of the Complaint, the action may be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

4) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and Complaint must 

return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not the Plaintiff.

Dated this 17th day of June, 2020.

Case 2:20-cv-00653-DWL Document 8 Filed 06/17/20 Page 4 of 4