Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02896/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02896-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 JL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Travis L. Ware,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

City of Phoenix, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 19-02896-PHX-MTL (ESW)

ORDER

I. Procedural History

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Travis L. Ware, who was then confined in the Arizona 

State Prison Complex-Douglas and is now confined in the Southeast Correctional Center 

in Charleston, Missouri, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a May 8, 2019 Order, the Court 

denied the deficient Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff 30 days to pay the filing and 

administrative fees for this action or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis. Plaintiff subsequently filed two more deficient Applications to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis, which the Court denied with leave to re-file on June 6, 2019, and July 2, 2019, 

respectively. 

On July 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed his fourth Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis. In an October 8, 2019 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and 

dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. 

The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies 

Case 2:19-cv-02896-MTL--ESW Document 24 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 6
- 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

identified in the Order.

On October 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Reconsider/Extension of Time.”

On November 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Motion of Discovery Exculpatory Evidence.” In 

a December 23, 2019 Order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery. The Court 

granted the “Motion to Reconsider/Extension of Time” in part and gave Plaintiff an 

additional 60 days to file an amended complaint in compliance with the October 8, 2019 

Order and denied the Motion in all other respects. The Court explicitly warned Plaintiff 

that if he failed to file an amended complaint within 60 days, this case would be dismissed 

without further notice to him.

On March 11, 2020, not having received an amended complaint or a motion for 

extension of time, the Clerk of Court dismissed this action with prejudice and entered 

Judgment. (Doc. 22.) The same day, the Court received Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 23), which he signed on March 2, 2020. Under the prison “‘mailbox rule,’ 

. . . a legal document is deemed filed on the date a [plaintiff] delivers it to the prison 

authorities for filing by mail.” Lott v. Mueller, 304 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is deemed to have been timely filed on March 2, 2020. 

Therefore, the Court will vacate the March 11, 2020 Judgment, and reopen this case. The 

Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint and this action.

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, theCase 2:19-cv-02896-MTL--ESW Document 24 Filed 03/16/20 Page 2 of 6
- 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

defendant-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)). 

III. First Amended Complaint

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief from Defendants 

City of Phoenix, City of Tempe, City of Douglas, and the State of Arizona. Plaintiff asserts 

claims related to his arrest.

In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested without probable cause. He 

asserts that he was given the option to remedy “the issue” by pleading guilty “with the 

intention to subject [him] to denial of [his] constitutional rights.” Plaintiff further claims 

he suffered multiple bodily injuries due to an “incident.”

Plaintiff designates Count Two as a claim for “municipal” liability based on the 

failure of the State of Arizona to “discipline” municipal policymakers “on a specific 

instance [of] violation of [the Fourth] Amendment.” Plaintiff appears to allege that a “tort 

Case 2:19-cv-02896-MTL--ESW Document 24 Filed 03/16/20 Page 3 of 6
- 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

remedy” is available against individuals acting as advocates on behalf of the State who,

under the color of state law, “subject[s] or causes to be subjected” any citizen of the United 

States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution 

“and laws.” As his injury, Plaintiff claims that as a result of a “civil conspiracy,” he was 

deprived of liberty and suffered multiple bodily injuries.

In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that state officials deprived him of federal rights 

by omitting to perform an act that they are legally required to perform, which caused the 

deprivation. He appears to assert that St. Luke’s Tempe Hospital and the “Douglas Mohave 

AZ medical system” breached the standard of care, and as a result, he suffered severe 

bodily injuries.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

A. State of Arizona

The State of Arizona is not a proper Defendant. Under the Eleventh Amendment to 

the Constitution of the United States, a state or state agency may not be sued in federal 

court without its consent. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 

(1984); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, “a state is not a 

‘person’ for purposes of section 1983.” Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 

1327 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). Therefore, the Court will dismiss Defendant State

of Arizona.

B. City Defendants

A municipality may not be sued solely because an injury was inflicted by its 

employees or agents. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006).

The actions of individuals may support municipal liability only if the employees were 

acting pursuant to an official policy or custom of the municipality. Botello v. Gammick, 

413 F.3d 971, 978-79 (9th Cir. 2005). A § 1983 claim against a municipal defendant 

“cannot succeed as a matter of law” unless a plaintiff: (1) contends that the municipal 

defendant maintains a policy or custom pertinent to the plaintiff’s alleged injury; and 

(2) explains how such policy or custom caused the plaintiff’s injury. Sadoski v. Mosley, 

Case 2:19-cv-02896-MTL--ESW Document 24 Filed 03/16/20 Page 4 of 6
- 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

435 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal of a municipal defendant pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to support that the City of 

Phoenix, City of Tempe, or City of Douglas maintained a specific policy or custom that 

resulted in a violation of Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights and has failed to explain 

how his injuries were caused by any municipal policy or custom. Thus, the Court will 

dismiss without prejudice Defendants City of Phoenix, City of Tempe, and City of 

Douglas.

C. Claims for Damages Barred

A prisoner’s claim for damages cannot be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if “a 

judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction 

or sentence,” unless the prisoner demonstrates that the conviction or sentence has 

previously been reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 

U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Plaintiff pleaded no contest to a dangerous drug violation in 

Maricopa County Superior Court case #CR2018-159265; pleaded no contest to one count 

of aggravated assault in #CR2018-161415; and pleaded guilty to one count of possession 

of a dangerous drug in #CR2019-106078.1 Those convictions have not been reversed, 

expunged, or otherwise invalidated. Although Plaintiff’s allegations are not entirely clear, 

his claims that he was arrested without probable cause, or that his Fourth Amendment rights 

were otherwise violated, imply the invalidity of his convictions, and his claims are 

therefore barred by Heck.

V. Dismissal without Leave to Amend

Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim in his First Amended Complaint, the 

Court will dismiss his First Amended Complaint. “Leave to amend need not be given if a 

complaint, as amended, is subject to dismissal.” Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 

885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is 

1 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/viewerDoc.asp?sadID=41250 (last 

accessed March 13, 2020); http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/

viewerDoc.asp?sadID=41252 (last accessed March 13, 2020); 

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/viewerDoc.asp?sadID=41251 (last accessed 

March 13, 2020).

Case 2:19-cv-02896-MTL--ESW Document 24 Filed 03/16/20 Page 5 of 6
- 6 -

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

particularly broad where Plaintiff has previously been permitted to amend his complaint. 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Repeated failure to cure deficiencies is one of the factors to be considered in deciding 

whether justice requires granting leave to amend. Moore, 885 F.2d at 538. 

Plaintiff has made multiple efforts at crafting a viable complaint and appears unable 

to do so despite specific instructions from the Court. The Court finds that further 

opportunities to amend would be futile. Therefore, the Court, in its discretion, will dismiss 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint without leave to amend.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Clerk of Court must vacate the March 11, 2020 Judgment (Doc. 22) and 

reopen this case.

(2) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 23) and this action are 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.

(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).

(4) The docket shall reflect that the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) 

and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), has considered whether an appeal 

of this decision would be taken in good faith and certifies that an appeal would not be taken 

in good faith for the reasons stated in the Order and because there is no arguable factual or 

legal basis for an appeal.

Dated this 16th day of March, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-02896-MTL--ESW Document 24 Filed 03/16/20 Page 6 of 6