Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08002/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08002-2/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

JDDL-K

WO SVK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Roy Simmons III, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

D’Arcy Downs-Vollbracht, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-8002-PCT-SMM (JCG)

ORDER

Plaintiff Roy Simmons, III, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex in

Douglas, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On

May 11, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and

gave Plaintiff 30 days to pay the $350.00 filing fee or file a proper Application to Proceed.

On May 25, 2007, Plaintiff filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The

Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend.

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 $15.40. The remainder of

the fee will be 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. 

Case 3:07-cv-08002-SMM--JCG Document 9 Filed 07/10/07 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

JDDL-K - 2 -

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). 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, with leave to amend because the Complaint may

possibly be saved by amendment.

III. Complaint

Plaintiff names the following Defendants: (1) D’Arcy Downs-Vollbracht, Public

Defender; (2) Lee F. Jantzen, Deputy County Attorney; (3) Matthew J. Smith, County

Attorney; (4) Steven F. Conn, Superior Court Judge; (5) J.W., employed as assistant to

Defendant Jantzen; (6) James M. Jellison, a private attorney; and (7) Schleier, Jellison, and

Schleier, a law firm.

The Complaint contains four counts, arising from Plaintiff’s prosecution and

sentencing and a complaint by Plaintiff to the Arizona State Bar. Defendant DownsVollbracht represented Plaintiff in his criminal case, which was prosecuted by Defendants

County Attorneys and heard by Defendant Judge Conn. Plaintiff also alleges that James

Jellison and his law firm, Schleier, Jellison, and Schleier, were retained by Defendant

Case 3:07-cv-08002-SMM--JCG Document 9 Filed 07/10/07 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

JDDL-K - 3 -

Downs-Vollbracht to defend her before the Arizona State Bar. All the claims appear to relate

to allegedly false information in a pre-sentence report.

In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Defendants either

submitted or allowed to be submitted false and misleading information in a court document

and Defendants Jellison and the law firm reiterated the information before the State Bar. In

Count II, Plaintiff alleges that, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), Defendants conspired to

obstruct justice by allowing false information to be submitted to the court and Defendants

Jellison and the law firm conspired with Defendant Downs-Vollbracht to obstruct justice by

reiterating the information to the State Bar. In Count III, Plaintiff alleges that, in violation

of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), all Defendants conspired to deprive Plaintiff of equal protection. 

In Count IV, Plaintiff alleges that, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986, Defendants DownsVollbracht, Jantzen, Smith, and Conn submitted or allowed to be submitted false information

to the court. Plaintiff seeks damages.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has annexed to the Complaint additional documents that

purport to be complaints in the U.S. District Court of Arizona issued pursuant to Rule 9 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The first is labeled “Negligence Where Plaintiff is Unable

to Determine Whether the Person Responsible is . . . or Whether all Are Responsible . . . .”

and names Vollbracht, Smith, Jellison and Schleier, Jellison, Schleier as Defendants. The

second is labeled “Negligence Where Plaintiff is Unable to Determine Whether the Person

Responsible is . . . or Whether all Are Responsible. . . .” and names Jantzen and J.W. as

Defendants. The third is labeled “Negligence” and names Steven Conn as Defendant. These

documents make the same factual allegations as are made in the Complaint described above.

These claims are not properly before the Court.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” in order to “give the defendant fair notice

of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957). “[A]

Case 3:07-cv-08002-SMM--JCG Document 9 Filed 07/10/07 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

JDDL-K - 4 -

plaintiff’s obligation to provide ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than

labels and conclusions. . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp., 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65 (quoting Conley, 355

U.S. at 47). Factual allegations must be sufficient to raise the right to relief beyond simple

speculation. Bell Atlantic Corp., 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65. Thus, Rule 8 requires a showing of

entitlement, not a mere blanket assertion; without some factual allegations, the claimant

cannot satisfy the requirement of providing “fair notice” of the nature of the claim or the

“grounds” on which the claim is based. Id. at n 3. Therefore, although pro se pleadings are

liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations

will not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673

F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982); Rhodes v. Robinson, 612 F.2d 766, 772 (3d Cir. 1979).

Further, a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements

of the claim that were not initially pled. Ivey, 673 F.2d at 268. Finally, the form for filing a

civil rights complaint and accompanying instructions require that a plaintiff include only one

claim per count. The requirement is also imposed by the local rules of this Court. See LRCiv

3.4(a) (complaint must be in accordance with the instructions provided with the form). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges that false information was contained in his sentencing report and

reiterated to the State Bar, but he never states what the information was. Likewise, his

conspiracy claims in Counts II and III contain no specific facts to support the existence of the

alleged conspiracy. See Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 821 (9th Cir. 1989);

Williams v. Sumner, 648 F. Supp. 510, 513 (D. Nev. 1986). His claims under 42 U.S.C.

§1985 do not allege that any Defendants acted with racial or otherwise class-based,

invidiously discriminatory animus. Most important, he does not explain how he was actually

injured by the false information or Defendants’ conduct. In each count, when asked to state

how he was injured by Defendants’ actions, he merely restates the legal claim—e.g. in Count

I, he describes his injury as denial “of equal protection and due process.”

Thus, Plaintiff has not made the required showing of an entitlement to relief, and the

Complaint does not give Defendants fair notice of the basis of the claims. In addition,

Plaintiff has included claims regarding what happened in court with claims regarding what

Case 3:07-cv-08002-SMM--JCG Document 9 Filed 07/10/07 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

JDDL-K - 5 -

happened before the State Bar; these claims would be based on separate facts and

appropriately brought as separate claims.

The allegations in the Complaint do not state a claim, and the Court will dismiss the

Complaint.

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. 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.

Case 3:07-cv-08002-SMM--JCG Document 9 Filed 07/10/07 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

JDDL-K - 6 -

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

will 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 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 (Doc. #7) 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 $15.40.

Case 3:07-cv-08002-SMM--JCG Document 9 Filed 07/10/07 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

JDDL-K - 7 -

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

DATED this 10th day of July, 2007.

Case 3:07-cv-08002-SMM--JCG Document 9 Filed 07/10/07 Page 7 of 7