Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01749/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01749-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Grayson, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 05-1749 PHX RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Dora Schriro, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

On June 10, 2005, Plaintiff Michael Grayson filed his

complaint in this matter. Complt. (doc. 1). On October 6, 2005,

Defendants Dora Schriro, et al., filed a motion to dismiss this

case. Mot. (docs. 10). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a document

entitled "Plaintiff's Motion to Deny Dismissal." Resp. (doc. 11,

12). The Court shall construe this document as Plaintiff's

response to Defendants' motion to dismiss. This motion was fully

briefed on November 2, 2005. Reply (doc. 13).

On February 14, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary

judgment. Mot. for Summ. Judg. (doc. 14). In response,

Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's motion for summary 

Case 2:05-cv-01749-RCB Document 16 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 9
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 Plaintiff, in his response, notes that in 1983, he was

convicted at trial of three counts of sexual assault and was

sentenced to a term of incarceration of ten and one half years.

Resp. (doc. 11) at 1. Thereafter, in 1995, Plaintiff states that he

returned to prison due to an aggravated assault offense. Id. Then,

- 2 -

judgment. Mot. to Strike (doc. 15). Plaintiff did not file a

response in opposition to Defendants' motion to strike. Having

carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties on all

of these matters, the court now rules.

I. Background Facts

On June 10, 2005, Plaintiff filed a seven-count Complaint

against Defendants. Complt. (doc. 1). In Count 1, Plaintiff

alleges that "state agency and agents," which includes Defendants

Schriro and Butcher, violated the Eighth Amendment to the United

States Constitution by "arbitrarily subjecting [him] to life

threatening conditions outside the parameters of the Federal

Sentencing Guidelines" and violated the Arizona State Constitution. 

Id. at 2. In Counts 2 through 7, Plaintiff alleges Federal and

State claims against the State of Arizona. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff

seeks damages in the amount of $2.5 million dollars and the removal

of his name from sex offender registration files. Id. at 4.

Plaintiff's complaint is void of any alleged facts related to

his claims. Only through sections of Plaintiff's response to

Defendants' motion to dismiss can the Court deduce a general idea

of what alleged events and injuries Plaintiff bases his claims

upon. It seems that Plaintiff is either challenging the

registration of his name as a sex offender or unhappy with the

terms of a prior plea agreement in which he entered. Resp. (doc.

11) at 5.1

Case 2:05-cv-01749-RCB Document 16 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 9
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

in 1999, Plaintiff states that he returned to prison for forgery and

burglary. Id. However, Plaintiff asserts that throughout this

entire time, no sex offender registration was ever ordered. Id.

Plaintiff notes that in 2000 he was relocated to "Eyman-Complex

Florence Sex Offender Unit." Id. He states that he "was not in

danger before his relocation," however he maintains that he was "in

jeopardy [when he returned to the Yuma facility after a parole

violation in 2004] since registration was already accomplished." Id.

- 3 -

II. Discussion

A. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Defendants move for dismissal of Plaintiff's claims based on

numerous alleged deficiencies in his Complaint. Mot. (doc. 10).

First, Defendants assert that Plaintiff failed to provide a "short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief," required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8(a). Id. at 2. Second, Defendants argue that, because Plaintiff

failed to bring his constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983 ("Section 1983"), there exists no direct cause of action

against Defendants Schriro and Butcher for alleged constitutional

violations. Id. at 3, citing City of Newport v. Fact Concerts,

Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 258 (1981). Third, Defendants contend that, to

the extent that Plaintiff's Complaint sets forth Federal claims

against the State of Arizona, the Arizona Department of

Corrections, or any other State agency, these parties are not

proper, as they are not "persons" within the meaning of Section

1983, and, thus, such claims must be dismissed. Id., citing Will

v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989). 

Fourth, Defendants argue that the Eleventh Amendment to the United

States Constitution bars Plaintiff's monetary claim against

Defendants in their official capacities. Id., citing Edelman v.

Case 2:05-cv-01749-RCB Document 16 Filed 05/17/06 Page 3 of 9
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 -

Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63, 677-78 (1974). Fifth, Defendants

note that much of the authority cited by Plaintiff as the basis of

his claims (the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Uniform

Commercial Code, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 872) are not

applicable to this civil action. Id. at 4-5. Sixth, Defendants

assert that the Arizona Department of Corrections is not a proper

defendant in this matter, because it is a non-jural entity. Id. at

5. Seventh, Defendants argue that Counts 1 through 4, alleging

violations of the Arizona State Constitution, must be dismissed due

to Plaintiff's failure to provide a notice of claim as required by

A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A). Id. at 5-6. Finally, Defendants argue that

Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed due to his failure to state

a claim. Id. at 6.

Rule 8(a) provides in pertinent part that:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief,

whether an original claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim shall contain (1) a

short and plain statement of the grounds upon

which the court's jurisdiction depends, unless

the court already has jurisdiction and the claim

needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support

it, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,

and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the

pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of

several different types may be demanded.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Complaints that are confusing and conclusory

are not in compliance with Rule 8. See Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co.,

758 F.2d 409, 415 (9th Cir. 1985). Generally, Rule 8(a) requires

"sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the

claims against them." McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th

Cir. 1991). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may

be granted only if "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can

Case 2:05-cv-01749-RCB Document 16 Filed 05/17/06 Page 4 of 9
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

- 5 -

prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle

him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).

In deciding such a motion, all material allegations of

the complaint are accepted as true, as well as all

reasonable inferences to be drawn from them. Cahill v.

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 338 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Dismissal is proper only where there is no cognizable

legal theory or an absence of sufficient facts alleged to

support a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). 

A pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held

to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The Ninth

Circuit requires liberal construction of a pro se litigant’s

pleadings and disfavors summary dismissal of their complaints. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992); McHenry

v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, before a district

court may dismiss a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim,

a court must provide the pro se litigant with notice of the

deficiencies of his or her complaint and an opportunity to amend

the complaint prior to dismissal. McGurkin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 1992).

Plaintiff's Complaint fails to satisfy the requirements of

Rule 8. While Plaintiff cites articles of the United States

Constitution, the Arizona State Constitution, several federal

statutes, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and the Uniform

Commercial Code as authority in support of his claims, the court

remains unable to determine what Plaintiff's cause of action

entails. The basis for Plaintiff's demands are unclear. Plaintiff

claims: (i) "State agency and Agents...willingly and knowingly

Case 2:05-cv-01749-RCB Document 16 Filed 05/17/06 Page 5 of 9
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 -

violated the VIII Amendment of the Constitution of the United

States by arbitrarily subjecting Plaintiff to life-threatening

conditions outside the parameters of the Federal-Sentencing

Guidelines (effective 2004); and in addition violated the State

Constitution [Art. II sect. 15];" (ii) that the State of Arizona

violated Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United

States and Article II, Sections 10, 25 and 19 of the Constitution

of the State of Arizona by "prohibiting the passage of bills of

attainder or ex-post-facto law;" (iii) that the State of Arizona

violated Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United

States and Article II, Section 25 of the Constitution of the State

of Arizona by "impairing the obligation of contracts;" (iv) that

the State of Arizona violated "Article X" of the Bill of Rights of

the Constitution of the United States and Article II, Section 33 of

the Constitution of the State of Arizona by "compelling a citizen

of the United States to contract; and violating the U.C.C. mandate

- U.C.C. 1.207;" (v) that the State of Arizona violated Article 4,

Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States, "which

guarantees to every state a Republican form of Government;" (vi)

that the State of Arizona is "guilty of violating jurisdiction,

under Title 18 U.S.C.; Chapter 13 Sections 241, 242;" and (vii)

that the State of Arizona "is guilty of Title 18; Part 1, Chapter

41, Section 872 = (Extortion by officers or employees of the United

States." Complt. (doc. 1) at 2-3. 

Plaintiff, in his response, seems to confuse the "notice"

required under Rule 8 and that required under A.R.S. § 12-821.01. 

He argues that he provided "notice" to Defendants when, 

...[a] NOTICE OF IMPENDING TORT ACTION was

Case 2:05-cv-01749-RCB Document 16 Filed 05/17/06 Page 6 of 9
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 Additionally, in his response, Plaintiff raises issues of

"concurrent negligence," alleged due process violations, and double

jeopardy. Resp. (doc. 11) at 4-6. These claims were not raised in

Plaintiff's Complaint and, consequently, shall not be considered by

the Court.

- 7 -

presented to the Department of Corrections, the

ADULT Parole Dept [sic], and the Attorney General,

Terry Goddard, [sic] Mr. Goddard's office received

this notice via certified postage on March 1,

2004. Furthermore, an additional NOTICE was

received by the Dept. of Corrections (Community

Corrections Division) May 3, 2004. 

Resp. (doc. 11) at 2. However, beyond the issue of "notice,"

Plaintiff fails to address any of Defendants' other arguments.2

 

Furthermore, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to define sufficient

alleged facts to support a cognizable legal theory. See Navarro,

250 F.3d at 732. His Complaint consists solely of conclusory

statements. Although Plaintiff's response to Defendants' motion to

dismiss discloses some events that can be assumed to be related to

Plaintiff's claims, the nature of the action remains unclear to the

Court. It is not clear to the Court what event, injury or damage

Plaintiff claims to have suffered, and under what legal theory

Defendants could be found liable for such an event, injury or

damage. 

The Ninth Circuit requires liberal construction of a pro se

litigant’s pleadings and disfavors summary dismissal of their

complaints. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261; McHenry, 84 F.3d 1172. 

Thus, the Court shall allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint in

order to correct the deficiencies discussed above. 

B. Defendants' Motion to Strike

On March 7, 2006, Defendants filed a motion to strike

Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Mot. to Strike (doc. 15). 

Case 2:05-cv-01749-RCB Document 16 Filed 05/17/06 Page 7 of 9
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

- 8 -

In their motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's motion for

summary judgment should be stricken from the record because (1) it

does not comport with the requirements of Local Rule 56.1; and (2)

Defendant's motion to dismiss, filed on October 6, 2005, has not

yet been ruled upon by the Court. Id. No objection or response

was filed by Plaintiff in opposition to this motion. Consequently,

the Court shall grant Defendants' motion to strike.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 10) is

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before June 19, 2006,

Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint in compliance with

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule of

Practice 7.1, which specifies the Court's jurisdictional basis

therein, clarifies the statute(s) upon which Plaintiff is relying

to support her claim(s), names the defendant(s) therein she

believes are appropriate, provides a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief, and demands

judgment for the relief Plaintiff seeks.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to comply with these Orders

may result in the dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint without

prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to

provide the Plaintiff with a copy of "Filing A Complaint In Your

Own Behalf."

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendants' motion to strike

. . . 

Case 2:05-cv-01749-RCB Document 16 Filed 05/17/06 Page 8 of 9
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

- 9 -

Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (doc. 15) is GRANTED. 

DATED this 16th day of May, 2006.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:05-cv-01749-RCB Document 16 Filed 05/17/06 Page 9 of 9