Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00591/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00591-0/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WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

STANLEY FISHMAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 07-0591 PHX MEA

)

D.P.S., SHERIFF, STATE OF ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ARIZONA, MARICOPA COUNTY )

SUPERIOR COURT, ) 

)

Defendants. )

_____________________________ )

Plaintiff has agreed to the exercise of magistrate

judge jurisdiction over this matter, including the entry of

final judgment. Defendants have not been served nor appeared in

this matter.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in this

Court, which was categorized as a complaint alleging violation

of his civil rights, and also filed a motion to proceed before

the Court in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has also filed a motion

seeking the appointment of counsel. 

Subject to subsection (b), any court of the

United States may authorize the commencement,

prosecution or defense of any suit, action or

proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal

therein, without prepayment of fees or

security therefor, by a person who submits an

affidavit that includes a statement of all

assets such prisoner possesses that the

person is unable to pay such fees or give

Case 2:07-cv-00591-MEA Document 7 Filed 04/19/07 Page 1 of 7
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 -2-

security therefor. Such affidavit shall

state the nature of the action, defense or

appeal and affiant’s belief that the person

is entitled to redress.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (1994 & Supp. 2006).

The Court must dismiss a complaint filed in tandem with

a petition to proceed in forma pauperis if it is satisfied that

the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted.” Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court may not dismiss

a case merely because it believes that the plaintiff will lose

on the merits, or on a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

motion for failure to state a claim. See Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989). The Court may exercise

its discretion to dismiss an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(d) if it is “frivolous or malicious,” i.e., the claims have

no arguable basis in law and fact. See, e.g., Mayfield v.

Collins, 918 F.2d 560, 561 (5th Cir. 1990). 

Under the liberal rules applicable to pro se

complaints, an action is frivolous if the plaintiff cannot make

a rational argument on the law and facts in support of his

claim. See Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1434 (10th

Cir. 1988); Wiggins v. New Mexico State Supreme Court Clerk, 664

F.2d 812, 815 (10th Cir. 1981). Even pro se pleadings must

contain a minimum level of factual support and a plaintiff

should not be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis if his

complaint is so lacking in specific facts the Court must invent

a factual scenarios not evident from the face of the complaint.

See Richmond v. Cagle, 920 F. Supp. 955, 957 (E.D. Wis. 1996).

Case 2:07-cv-00591-MEA Document 7 Filed 04/19/07 Page 2 of 7
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 -3-

To state a cognizable claim against the named defendants, a

plaintiff must allege a specific injury resulting from specific

conduct of the defendants. Cf. Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472,

1475 (10th Cir. 1995) (so holding in the context of a civil

rights claim.

To state a section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must

allege facts showing a “person,” acting under color of state

law, deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity

secured by the United States Constitution. See, e.g., West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S. Ct. 2250, 2254 (1988);

Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th

Cir. 1988). State officials acting within their official

capacities are not “persons” subject to liability under section

1983. See, e.g., Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491

U.S. 58, 71, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 2312 (1989). A state agency is,

in particular circumstances, a “person” who may be sued pursuant

to section 1983; however, the agency may only be sued for

injunctive relief, rather than monetary damages. See, e.g.,

Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 29-30, 112 S. Ct. 358, 364 (1991);

Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 951 (9th Cir. 2004). Compare

Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 365 (9th Cir. 2004)

(concluding a suit for prospective injunctive relief, rather

than monetary damages, is not barred by sovereign immunity). To

state a claim of the deprivation of civil rights, the plaintiff

must allege a specific injury resulting from specific conduct of

the defendants. See Thomas v. County of Los Angeles, 978 F.2d

504, 509 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Case 2:07-cv-00591-MEA Document 7 Filed 04/19/07 Page 3 of 7
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-

 Plaintiff’s complaint, filed March 20, 2007, but dated

July 4, 2006, states in its entirety: 

I can not get a fair hearing or trial in

other courts.

I am asking for sixty five million dollars as

follows

1 - caused me to have [cancer] of stomach

2 - kept me in jail for about two years

3 - [accepted] a phony plea barg[ai]n

4 - refused to remove phoney plea bargain

which was [written] after I sign the

[original] one

5 - took all my [belongings] and took

$10000.00 dollars of my money and cars and

put it in [their] pockets

6 - refused to reopen the case against me

7 - [there] was no proof regarding all

charges against me

8 - was beaten by sheriff men and [stole] a

belongs while I was locked up

9 - knocked out my teeth while beating me

refused to give [medical attention] at [the]

time

Reading Plaintiff’s complaint very broadly, there is

clearly no arguable basis in fact or law on which his action may

proceed in this Court. Plaintiff has not properly alleged a

violation of a specific constitutional right. See Shah v.

County of Los Angeles, 797 F.2d 743, 746 (9th Cir. 1986)

(concluding that to survive a motion to dismiss the plaintiff

must allege “that the injury he suffered at the [defendants’]

hands infringed a right guaranteed by federal law or the federal

Constitution.”). Plaintiff asserts no factual basis for his

allegations that he has been harmed, nor does the complaint

allege any specific conduct on the part of any named defendant

which caused Plaintiff’s alleged harm. Plaintiff does not

clearly allege that any named defendant acted under color of

state law, nor does Plaintiff allege that any named defendant

Case 2:07-cv-00591-MEA Document 7 Filed 04/19/07 Page 4 of 7
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 Court’s cursory search of public records databases

indicates Plaintiff was arrested and charged with criminal violations

in 1994 and 1995. The statute of limitations regarding a section

1983 claim arising in Arizona is two years. See DeLuna v. Farris, 841

F.2d 312, 313 (9th Cir. 1988). A district court may sua sponte

dismiss a complaint on statute-of-limitations grounds if it is clear

from the face of the complaint that the claims asserted are barred by

the applicable statute of limitations because the court does not have

subject matter jurisdiction over a claim which is time-barred. See

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-30 (9th Cir. 1984).

2 The Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates Plaintiff

is not employed, but does not specify when Plaintiff was last

employed. However, the motion is also dated July 4, 2006,

approximately nine months prior to the date the motion was filed.

Plaintiff indicated he receives $853 each month in Social Security

benefits but does not indicate if he receives money from any other

source. Plaintiff did not respond to questions regarding his

ownership of property or if he is married or if he has dependents.

See Docket No. 3. 

-5-

deprived Plaintiff of a specific civil right. Depending on when

the alleged “events” occurred, it is possible Plaintiff’s claims

are all barred by the applicable statute of limitations.1

Additionally, because there is no respondeat superior

liability pursuant to section 1983, Plaintiff has not properly

alleged a claim for relief against any county sheriff.

Furthermore, the Maricopa County Superior Court is not a state

entity which may be sued pursuant to section 1983 and the judges

of that court are entitled to absolute immunity from a section

1983 suit. See Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir.

1996) (stating that the doctrine of judicial immunity extends

not only to damages but to claims for declaratory and injunctive

relief).

Plaintiff has arguably met the income requirements of

proceeding in forma pauperis,2 however, the Court is within its

discretion in denying him in forma pauperis status and

Case 2:07-cv-00591-MEA Document 7 Filed 04/19/07 Page 5 of 7
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 -6-

dismissing the complaint. See O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614,

617 (9th Cir. 1990); Wiggins v. New Mexico State Supreme Court

Clerk, 664 F.2d 812, 816 (10th Cir. 1981). Because the

complaint does not allege specific acts occurring on specific

dates by specific defendants and has no arguable basis in the

law, and finding that the complaint is, therefore, frivolous,

the complaint must be dismissed. See Bennett v. State of

Calif., 406 F.2d 36, 39 (9th Cir. 1969); Spencer v. Doe, 139

F.3d 107, 111 (2d Cir. 1998).

Whether to appoint counsel to an indigent plaintiff in

a civil rights case is a decision within the discretion of the

Court. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

1986). Counsel should be appointed only in exceptional

circumstances. Id. A finding of exceptional circumstances may

be made where there is both a likelihood of success on the

merits and the plaintiff has demonstrated a lack of ability to

articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal

issues involved. See Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th

Cir. 1983). Although Plaintiff has not demonstrated an ability

to articulate his claims clearly, as stated supra, there is no

likelihood of success on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims as

stated in his complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not

demonstrated the existence of exceptional circumstances in this

matter which would warrant the appointment of counsel and the

Court will not exercise its discretion to appoint counsel. 

Case 2:07-cv-00591-MEA Document 7 Filed 04/19/07 Page 6 of 7
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 -7-

THEREFORE, it is ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion to

Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Docket No. 3] is denied, and

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Docket No. 6] is

also denied.

According,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint is hereby

dismissed with prejudice.

DATED this 18th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00591-MEA Document 7 Filed 04/19/07 Page 7 of 7