Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02323/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02323-0/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

1

 Plaintiff has filed three other cases since he commenced this one: Cleveland v.

Arpaio, No. CV12-2605-PHX-DGC (SPL) (§ 1983); Cleveland v. Babeu, No. CV12-2685-

PHX-DGC (SPL) (§ 2254 habeas); and Cleveland v. Babeu, No. CV13-0045-PHX-DGC

(SPL) (§ 2241 habeas).

JDDL-K

SC

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christopher Lamar Cleveland, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona Department of Safety, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-2323-PHX-DGC (SPL)

ORDER

Plaintiff Christopher Lamar Cleveland, who is confined in the Pinal County Jail in

Florence, Arizona, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

1

 Plaintiff has also filed numerous motions

and notices, including a motion for appointment of counsel, motions to order Defendants to

respond, and a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. 5-7, 10-16.) The Court will dismiss

the Complaint with leave to amend and deny the motions and notices to the extent that any

relief is sought.

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $18.40. The remainder of the fee will be

Case 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 24
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

JDDL-K - 2 -

collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income each time the amount

in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate

Order requiring the appropriate government agency to collect and forward the fees according

to the statutory formula. 

II. 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, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (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 1950. 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 1951.

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

Case 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 Page 2 of 24
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

 While there is no Santa Monica County in California, there is a Santa Monica

Courthouse, which is part of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. See

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/locations/ui/location.aspx?loc=sm& (last visited Jan. 29,

JDDL-K - 3 -

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). The Court

should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type of advice “would

undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225,

231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to decide whether the court was

required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint

for failure to state a claim, but because the Complaint may possibly be saved by amendment,

the Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend.

III. Complaint

Plaintiff alleges four counts for violation of his Eighth and Thirteenth Amendment

rights. Plaintiff sues the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS); Arizona Governor Jan

Brewer; Pinal County Attorney James P. Walsh; and Deputy Pinal County Attorney Jason

R. Holmberg. Plaintiff seeks injunctive, compensatory, and punitive relief. In particular,

Plaintiff asks that DPS be required to show proof that Plaintiff was convicted of a sexual

offense in California by producing a copy of the case file, a pardon from Brewer, removal

of his name from the DPS sex offender registry, and restoration of his parental rights.

Plaintiff alleges the following: he is listed as a “high level” sex offender on the DPS

sex offender website based on an alleged “Santa Monica Co. Crt.” conviction for lewd and

lascivious acts with a child. (Doc. 1, attach.) Plaintiff claims that no records support that he

was convicted in “Santa Monica County” of a sex offense because there is no Santa Monica

County in California.2

 Plaintiff further alleges that since 2001, the posting of this inaccurate

Case 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 Page 3 of 24
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

2013). The description on DPS’s website apparently refers to the Los Angeles County

Superior Court located in Santa Monica, i.e., a county courthouse located in the city of Santa

Monica. 

3

 See https://web2.westlaw.com, criminal arrest & infractions records-California

(CRIM-CA), record date May 13, 1993, case# SA013565 (last visited Jan. 30, 2013). 

4

 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102003/m1159258.pdf

(last visited Jan. 29, 2013).

JDDL-K - 4 -

information on the DPS sex offender website, despite Plaintiff’s repeated attempts to have

it removed, has damaged his reputation and adversely affected his life. Plaintiff alleges that

DPS is supervised and controlled by the Arizona Governor and that both DPS and Brewer

are liable for disseminating inaccurate information about him, which has resulted in

Plaintiff’s arrest and prosecution and adversely affected all aspects of his life. 

Background

Unofficial information from the Administrative Office of the Courts for Los Angeles

County, which is available on Westlaw, reflects that a person named “Christopher Lamar

Cleveland” was charged with a “P 288.A” offense in Los Angeles County Court, case#

SA013565, on May 13, 1993.3

 California Penal Code § 288a penalizes oral copulation with

a person under 18 years of age and/or with a person against the person’s will, among other

circumstances. See West’s Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 288a. Plaintiff asserts that “per Los

Angeles Superior Crt. (Clerk) John A. Clarke case no. SA013565,” he is not a convicted sex

offender. (Doc. 1 at 3A, 4B (Plaintiff’s hand-written replica of a Culver City Municipal

record reflecting that Plaintiff was charged on May 13, 1993)

According to Maricopa County Superior Court records available on-line, on

September 30, 2003, Plaintiff was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison after pleading guilty to

failure to register as a sex offender in case# CR2003-037149, apparently based on California

case SA013565.4

 On December 18, 2007, Plaintiff was sentenced to serve three years in

prison after pleading guilty to one count of failing to register as a sex offender with one prior

Case 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 Page 4 of 24
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

 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/122007/m2979475.pdf

(last visited Jan. 29, 2013). In the minute entry, Plaintiff’s last name is spelled “Cleaveland”

but the referenced prior felony was CR2003-037149. Id.

6

 See n.5, supra.

7

 See http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/minutes.aspx (Last visited Jan.

29, 2013).

8

 See http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/minutes.aspx, minute entry dated

Dec. 20, 2012 (last visited Jan. 29, 2013).

9

 See http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/minutes.aspx, minute entry dated

Dec. 20, 2012 (last visited Jan. 29, 2013).

10 See http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx, case## CR2012

00144 and CR201202592 (last visited Jan. 29, 2013).

11 On November 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

District Court for the Central District of California. Cleveland v. State of Cal., No.

2:12cv09821-VBF-MRW (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2012), doc. 1. In his petition, Plaintiff sought

to expunge CR SA01356501 for which he “supposedly” served 365 days in jail followed by

36 months on probation. Id. Plaintiff stated that he requested a copy of case SA01356501

and received a response that it was a Culver City municipal case that was dismissed on

November 30, 1993. Id., doc. 3. On December 13, 2012, Plaintiff’s California habeas case

JDDL-K - 5 -

felony in Maricopa County Superior Court case #CR2007-030890.5 Defendant Jason R.

Holmberg was the Deputy Maricopa County Attorney who prosecuted that case.6

Plaintiff is currently charged in two criminal cases in Pinal County Superior Court.

In case #CR201200144, he is charged with one count of failure as a sex offender to file a

notice of address or name charge, and in case #CR201202592, he is charged with one count

each of failure as a sex offender to file a notice of moving out of the county and failure to

register with the sheriff’s department.7

 In a minute entry issued December 20, 2012 in

CR201200144, the court set a hearing on a state motion to dismiss, which was scheduled to

be held on January 8, 2013.8

 Based on the scheduled hearing in that case, the court reset the

pretrial conference in CR201202592 to be held the same day.9

 Both hearings have since been

continued for reasons, and to a date, not reflected in records currently available on-line.10

Defendant Holmberg is the deputy county attorney prosecuting both Pinal County cases.11

Case 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 Page 5 of 24
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

was dismissed based on lack of jurisdiction where Plaintiff sought relief under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241, and he was not then “in custody” pursuant to a California state court judgment, but

was instead in the custody of Arizona officials on Arizona state charges. Id., doc. 4. 

JDDL-K - 6 -

IV. Failure to State a Claim

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts to support that (1) the

conduct about which he complains was committed by a person acting under the color of state

law and (2) the conduct deprived him of a federal constitutional or statutory right. Wood v.

Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, to state a valid constitutional

claim, 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).

A. DPS

Plaintiff sues the DPS. Ordinarily, under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution

of the United States, neither a state nor a state agency may be sued in federal court without

its consent. Pennhurst St. Sch. & Hosp., 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List , 880 F.2d

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, neither the State of Arizona nor any State agency is a

“person” within the meaning of § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,

64 (1989) (holding that the term “person” as used in § 1983 did not include a State or State

agency). For both reasons, DPS will be dismissed as a Defendant in this case.

B. Brewer

Plaintiff also sues Arizona Governor Brewer. Eleventh Amendment immunity bars

suit for damages against Brewer in her official capacity for violations of federal law, but does

not bar suit for declaratory or injunctive relief against her. See Coalition to Defend

Affirmative Action v. Brown, 674 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2012). However, an “individual

state official sued ‘must have some connection with the enforcement of the act.’” Id.

(quoting Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 157 (1908)). Further, “that connection ‘must be

fairly direct; a generalized duty to enforce state law or general supervisory power over

persons responsible for enforcing the challenged provision will not subject an official to

Case 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 Page 6 of 24
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

12 To state a claim under § 1983 for failure to protect or threats to safety, an inmate

must allege facts to support that he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial

risk of harm and that officials were “deliberately indifferent” to those risks. Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994). To adequately allege deliberate indifference, a

plaintiff must allege facts to support that a defendant knew of, but disregarded, an excessive

risk to inmate safety. Id. at 837. That is, “the official must both [have been] aware of facts

from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed], and

he must also [have] draw[n] the inference.” Id. Plaintiff has not alleged facts to support he

has been incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of harm to him.

13 “The Thirteenth Amendment declares that ‘[n]either slavery nor involuntary

servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,

shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.’” United States

v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 942 (1988) (quoting Amendment XIII). “By its terms [the

Thirteenth] Amendment excludes involuntary servitude imposed as legal punishment for a

crime.” Id. at 943. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks relief for his detention or incarceration

in connection with criminal charges or convictions, he fails to state a Thirteenth Amendment

claim.

JDDL-K - 7 -

suit.’” Id. (quoting L.A. Cnty. Bar Ass’n v. Eu, 979 F.3d 697, 704 (9th Cir. 1992)).

Plaintiff predicates his allegations against Governor Brewer on acts taken in her

official capacity and on her general supervisory power over persons responsible for enforcing

the DPS sex offender website and Arizona Revised Statute § 13-3821. That is not sufficient

to establish her connection to the posting of allegedly inaccurate information about Plaintiff

on the website. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against her and she will be

dismissed. 

C. Count I

Plaintiff designates Count I as a claim for threat to safety12 in violation of his Eighth

and Thirteenth Amendment13 rights based on allegedly inaccurate information posted to the

DPS website about him. Plaintiff asserts Count I only against DPS and the Arizona

Governor. As discussed above, DPS is not a proper Defendant and Plaintiff fails to state a

claim against Governor Brewer. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against any

Defendant in Count I and that count will be dismissed.

D. Count II

Plaintiff designates Count II as a claim for falsifying a conviction in violation of 18

Case 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 Page 7 of 24
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

JDDL-K - 8 -

U.S.C. § 1001 and violation of his Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff

alleges that Pinal County Attorney Walsh and Deputy County Attorney Holmberg became

aware that charges filed against Plaintiff had been dismissed by the Culver City Municipal

Court but withheld such information and continued to wrongfully prosecute Plaintiff based

on a non-existent sexual offense conviction, which has resulted in Plaintiff’s wrongful

detention. Plaintiff has attached a copy of the State’s 1st Notice of Supplemental Disclosure

in CR201200144, in which Walsh and Holmberg state they caused a copy of records from

the Arizona Department of Corrections and records from the municipal court of Culver City

to be delivered to Plaintiff’s attorney. (See Doc. 1 at 4A-4C.) Plaintiff states that the

National Crime Information Center (NCIC) shows that on November 30, 1993, Culver City

Municipal Court dismissed a charge for acts with a minor in case #SA013565. (Id. at 4.)

Plaintiff contends that Defendants Walsh and Holmberg withheld this information and

maintained their allegedly wrongful prosecution against him. 

A prosecutor is absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for conduct in

“initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case” insofar as that conduct is

“intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Buckley v.

Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 270 (1993) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430

(1976)); Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486 (1991) (quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430-431);

Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 1986). That is, “[a] prosecutor is protected

by absolute immunity from liability for damages under § 1983 ‘when performing the

traditional functions of an advocate.’” Genzler v. Longanbach, 410 F.3d 630, 636 (9th Cir.

2005) (quoting Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 131 (1997)). Absolute immunity extends

to a prosecutor “eliciting false or defamatory testimony from witnesses” or making false or

defamatory statements during, and related to judicial proceedings. Buckley, 509 U.S. at 270

(citations omitted). “However, ‘the actions of a prosecutor are not absolutely immune merely

because they are performed by a prosecutor.’” Genzler, 410 F.3d at 636 (quoting Buckley,

509 U.S. at 273). Rather, prosecutorial immunity depends on “‘the nature of the function

performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.’” Id. (quoting Kalina, 522 U.S.

Case 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 Page 8 of 24
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

JDDL-K - 9 -

at 127). A prosecutor is only entitled to qualified immunity, rather than absolute immunity,

when he performs administrative or investigative functions. Id.

Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants Walsh and Holmberg concern their

prosecution of him, including their delivery of supplemental disclosure to Plaintiff’s attorney.

Such conduct is intimately associated with the judicial phase of criminal proceedings against

Plaintiff. For that reason, Defendants Walsh and Holmberg are entitled to prosecutorial

immunity for their acts in prosecuting Plaintiff. Accordingly, Count II will be dismissed

based on prosecutorial immunity.

V. Leave to Amend

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first

amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail

Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails

to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the 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 “First

Amended Complaint.” The first 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 by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count.

A first amended complaint supersedes the original 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 an original complaint as

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

complaint is waived if it is not raised in a first amended complaint. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

VI. Plaintiff’s Motions

As noted above, Plaintiff has filed numerous motions and notices. To the extent that

Plaintiff seeks any relief in his notices, his notices will be denied. To seek relief, Plaintiff

Case 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 Page 9 of 24
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

JDDL-K - 10 -

must file a motion.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 5.) Counsel is only

appointed in a civil rights action in “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections

Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A

finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success

on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331; see Agyeman, 390

F.3d at 1103; Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. 

The legal issues involved in this case do not present exceptional circumstances and

Plaintiff appears able to articulate his claims. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment

of counsel will be denied. 

Motions to Proffer and for Hearing

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proffer or request a free talk. (Doc. 6.) In this

motion, Plaintiff appears to seek relief regarding information contained on the DPS sex

offender website and in connection with the merits in this case. This motion will be denied

as premature prior to screening of an amended complaint and service on any Defendant in

this case. 

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for hearing or conference. (Doc. 7.) In this motion,

Plaintiff again appears to be seeking relief regarding purportedly false information about him

on the DPS sex offender website. As with the motion to proffer, this motion will be denied

as premature prior to the screening of an amended complaint and service on any Defendant.

Motion to Require Defendants to Respond

Plaintiff has also filed two motions asking the Court to order a response by

Defendants. (Doc. 10, 15.) As discussed herein, his Complaint is being dismissed for failure

to state a claim with leave to amend. Service on or more Defendants will not be ordered

unless Plaintiff files an amended complaint that states a viable claim against at least one

Case 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 Page 10 of 24
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

JDDL-K - 11 -

Defendant. Plaintiff’s motions to order a response will be denied.

Motion for Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff asserts

that it is impossible for him to receive a fair trial in CR201202592 because he has been

libeled since 2001 as a sex offender and maintains that he has never been convicted of a sex

offense. Plaintiff asks this Court to order the Pinal County Superior Court to “produce case

file records proving its claim that SA01356501 is a true sex offense.” (Id. at 2.) He

otherwise asks this Court to intercede in his state criminal proceedings. 

The abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), prevents

a federal court in most circumstances from directly interceding in ongoing state criminal

proceedings. Further, the Younger abstention doctrine applies while a case works its way

through the state appellate process, if a prisoner is convicted. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc.

v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 369 (1989). Only in extraordinary

circumstances will the Younger doctrine not bar federal interference with ongoing (nonfinal) state criminal proceedings. Such circumstances include when a prisoner alleges that

he is being subjected to double jeopardy. See Mannes v. Gillespie, 967 F.2d 1310, 1312 (9th

Cir. 1992). Speedy trial claims may also be reviewed if a detainee is seeking to compel the

state to bring him to trial, rather than seeking dismissal of the charges, and the detainee has

exhausted all of his state court remedies. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky,

410 U.S. 484, 489-90 (1973); see In re Justices of Superior Court Dep’t of Mass. Trial Court,

218 F.3d 11, 18 & n.5 (1st Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff has not alleged, nor does it appear, that he is being subjected to double

jeopardy. Plaintiff has been charged with new violations of Arizona’s sex offender

registration law. Plaintiff also does not seek to compel the state to bring him to trial. To the

contrary, he seeks release and dismissal of the current charges. Thus, the Younger abstention

doctrine applies and Plaintiff’s motion to intervene in his state court proceedings will be

denied. 

Case 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 Page 11 of 24
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

JDDL-K - 12 -

Motion to Provide Proof of Santa Monica Court Case

Finally, Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking production of records to support that he

was convicted of a sex offense in California, including a copy of the actual judgment, and

again seeks intervention by this Court in his state criminal proceedings. To the extent that

Plaintiff is seeking discovery from Defendants, his request is premature prior to service of

an amended complaint on one or more Defendants. To the extent that he seeks intervention

by this Court in his state proceedings, his motion will be denied based on the Younger

abstention doctrine. 

VII. Warnings

A. Release

Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of his release.

Also, within 30 days of his release, he must either (1) notify the Court that he intends to pay

the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why he cannot. 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 Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a claim, if Plaintiff fails

to file an 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

Case 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 Page 12 of 24
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

JDDL-K - 13 -

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). 

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) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted. (Doc. 2.)

(2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency,

Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $18.40.

(3) The Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff has

30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended complaint in compliance with

this Order.

(4) If Plaintiff fails to file an 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).

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

rights complaint by a prisoner.

(6) Plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel, to proffer, for hearing, and to order

Defendants to respond are denied. (Docs. 5-7, 10, 12, 14, and 15) 

Case 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 Page 13 of 24
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

JDDL-K - 14 -

(7) Plaintiff’s notices are denied to the extent that he seeks any relief therein.

(Docs.8, 9, 11, 13, 16)

DATED this 7th day of February, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 Page 14 of 24
Revised 3/9/07 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 Fee. The filing fee for this action is $350.00. If you are unable to immediately

pay the filing fee, 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 $350 filing

fee or the application to proceed in forma pauperis to:

Case 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 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 courtapproved 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 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 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 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 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 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 Page 18 of 24
Revised 3/9/07 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 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 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 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 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 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 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 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 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 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 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 2:12-cv-02323-DGC--SPL Document 17 Filed 02/07/13 Page 24 of 24