Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02739/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02739-0/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 

ASH 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Scott Jordan Armendariz, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Lynn T. Hamilton, 

Defendant. 

No. CV 14-2739-PHX-DGC (BSB) 

ORDER 

On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Scott Jordan Armendariz, who is confined in the 

Gila County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(Doc 1), but did not either pay the $400 filing and administrative fees or submit an 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. By Order dated January 13, 2015, the Court 

provided Plaintiff with 30 days in which to either pay the filing and administrative fees, 

or submit an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 

Two days later, on January 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint 

that superseded the original Complaint in its entirety. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1262 (9th Cir. 1992). On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff submitted an Application to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 5), followed by an Amended Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis filed on February 2, 2015 (Doc. 6). The Court will dismiss this action. 

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 

Case 2:14-cv-02739-DGC--BSB Document 8 Filed 04/09/15 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 

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)). 

 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). 

Case 2:14-cv-02739-DGC--BSB Document 8 Filed 04/09/15 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 

Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, without leave to 

amend because the defects cannot be corrected. 

II. Complaint 

 In his single-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names Lynn T. Hamilton 

as the sole Defendant. Plaintiff alleges a single claim regarding Hamilton’s performance 

as Plaintiff’s defense attorney in an underlying criminal proceeding. 

III. Failure to State a Claim

 A prerequisite for any relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a showing that the 

defendant has acted under the color of state law. Whether an attorney representing a 

criminal defendant is a public defender or court-appointed counsel, he or she does not act 

under color of state law. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-18, 102 S.Ct. 

445, 449-50, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981). Therefore, Plaintiff’s civil rights claims against 

Defendant Hamilton must fail unless Plaintiff can set out facts showing a conspiracy 

between his counsel and state officials to deny him the right to adequate representation 

under the Sixth Amendment. See Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920 (1984). Plaintiff 

has not made any such allegation, nor does it appear that he could plausibly make such an 

allegation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a 

claim for which relief could be granted. Because it does not appear that Plaintiff could 

allege any facts that would cure the deficiency described herein, Plaintiff’s Complaint 

will be dismissed without leave to amend, and the Clerk of Court will be directed to 

terminate this matter. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 

 (2) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 6) is denied as 

moot. 

 (3) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the 

dismissal for failure to state a claim may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Case 2:14-cv-02739-DGC--BSB Document 8 Filed 04/09/15 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 

(4) 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 8th day of April, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02739-DGC--BSB Document 8 Filed 04/09/15 Page 4 of 4