Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02122/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02122-0/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

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jamond A. Toles, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Kellie M. Sanford, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2122-PHX-RCB (LOA)

ORDER

On October 4, 2010, Plaintiff Jamond A. Toles, who is confined in the Maricopa

County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (Doc. 1) and a deficient Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an October

12, 2010 Order, the Court denied the deficient Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff 30

days to either pay the filing fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

On October 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (Doc. 6). The Court will grant the second Application to Proceed and will dismiss

this action.

I. Second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

Plaintiff’s second 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 $15.33. The remainder of

the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income each

Case 2:10-cv-02122-RCB--LOA Document 8 Filed 10/25/10 Page 1 of 5
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 -

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, No. 07-17265, 2010 WL

2947323, at *3 (9th Cir. Jul. 29, 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be

Case 2:10-cv-02122-RCB--LOA Document 8 Filed 10/25/10 Page 2 of 5
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 -

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). Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for

failure to state a claim, without leave to amend because the defects cannot be corrected.

III. Complaint

In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues the following Defendants: attorney Kellie

M. Sanford and the Maricopa County Superior Court.

In Count One, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition

against cruel and unusual punishment because he is being held in jail “by Maricopa County

for crimes [he] didn[’]t commit” and because his attorney “is working with the County

against [him].” In Count Two, Plaintiff asserts a violation of article II, section 4 of the

Arizona Constitution. He claims that he is not being given the ability to “fully be represented

by counsel who[se] interest is [his] best” and he is being deprived of life and liberty because

he is being held in jail.

In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and for Maricopa County

and the Maricopa County Sheriff to be “reprimanded.” 

IV. Failure to State a Claim

A. Count One

1. Defendant Sanford

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against persons acting under color of state law

who have violated rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and federal law. 42

U.S.C. § 1983; see also Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F.3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995). A

Case 2:10-cv-02122-RCB--LOA Document 8 Filed 10/25/10 Page 3 of 5
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 -

public defender representing a criminal defendant does not act under color of state law. See

Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). Therefore, the Court will dismiss

Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Sanford. 

2. Defendant Maricopa County Superior Court

To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a specific

injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link between the

injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377

(1976). Plaintiff has made no allegations against Defendant Maricopa County Superior

Court. 

 Claims under § 1983 may be directed at “bodies politic and corporate.” Monell v.

New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 686, 688-89 (1978). “[A] municipality

can be sued under § 1983, but it cannot be held liable unless a municipal policy or custom

caused the constitutional injury.” Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and

Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 166 (1993). “A municipality may be liable for actions

resulting in violations of constitutional rights only when the conduct of its official or agent

is executed pursuant to a government policy or custom.” Lewis v. Sacramento County, 98

F.3d 434, 446 (9th Cir. 1996), rev’d on other grounds, 523 U.S. 833 (1998). Plaintiff does

not allege that any Defendant acted in conformance with a policy or custom of the Maricopa

County Superior Court in violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

Even if Plaintiff had sued an individual Maricopa County Superior Court Judge,

judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for damages for their judicial acts except

when they are taken “in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S.

349, 356-57 (1978) (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 351 (1871)); Ashelman v. Pope,

793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). An act is “judicial” when it is a function normally

performed by a judge and the parties dealt with the judge in his or her judicial capacity.

Stump, 435 U.S. at 362; Crooks v. Maynard, 913 F.2d 699, 700 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Therefore, the Court will dismiss Defendant Maricopa County Superior Court.

. . . .

Case 2:10-cv-02122-RCB--LOA Document 8 Filed 10/25/10 Page 4 of 5
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 -

B. Count Two

Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for violations of state law or state

constitutional rights. Ybarra v. Bastian, 647 F.2d 891, 892 (9th Cir. 1981). In order to state

a claim under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege a cognizable federal constitutional claim. In

Count Two, Plaintiff has only asserted a claim under the Arizona Constitution. This is

insufficient and, therefore, the Court will dismiss Count Two.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 6) is

granted.

(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 $15.33.

(3) 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.

(4) 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).

(5) 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 22nd day of October, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-02122-RCB--LOA Document 8 Filed 10/25/10 Page 5 of 5