Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02491/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02491-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Israel A. Correa, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2491-PHX-RCB (ECV)

ORDER

On November 17, 2010, Plaintiff Israel A. Correa, who is confined in the Maricopa

County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se Complaint (Doc. 1), an Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3), and an Inmate Account Statement (Doc. 4). By Order filed February

4, 2011 (Doc. 5), the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,

assessed an initial partial filing fee of $54.36, ordered that this action not proceed as a class

action, and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend on a court-approved form. Plaintiff

was given 30 days from the filing date of the Order to file a first amended complaint.

On March 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7). The Court will

dismiss the First Amended Complaint without leave to amend. 

Case 2:10-cv-02491-RCB--ECV Document 8 Filed 05/12/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

I. 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 contextspecific 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 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,

Case 2:10-cv-02491-RCB--ECV Document 8 Filed 05/12/11 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

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 First Amended Complaint will be

dismissed for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend because the First Amended

Complaint cannot be saved by amendment.

II. First Amended Complaint

On March 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7). Plaintiff should

take notice that all causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an

amended complaint are waived. Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542,

1546 (9th Cir. 1990) (“an amended pleading supersedes the original”); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d

565 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the Court will consider only those claims specifically asserted

in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with respect to only those Defendants specifically

named in the First Amended Complaint.

Named as Defendants in the First Amended Complaint are: (1) Joseph M. Arpaio,

Maricopa County Sheriff; (2)John Graham, Officer with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office;

(3) C.A. Rangel, Officer with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office; and (4) John Does 1-10,

Officers with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

Plaintiff’s alleges two counts in the First Amended Complaint. In Count I, he claims that

his “Miranda Rights” were violated on January 18, 2008, when, after being read his “Miranda

Rights,” he repeatedly asked to make a phone call to his attorney and his requests were denied

“several times.” In Count II, Plaintiff claims that his “Civil Rights” were violated when, after

being “pulled over” and arrested by a Maricopa County Sheriff’s Officer on January 18, 2008,

he was held in custody “for no reason” after a judge released him on his own recognizance.

Plaintiff alleges that he told the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office that he was a United States

citizen, but that “they didn’t believe [him] because of [his] accent.” Plaintiff also alleges that

Case 2:10-cv-02491-RCB--ECV Document 8 Filed 05/12/11 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

“officers” held him “because there was an immigration hold” on him. 

Plaintiff seeks a jury trial and compensatory monetary damages.

III. Dismissal of Defendants

A. Joseph M. Arpaio, John Graham, and C.A. Rangel

To state a viable constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must show an

affirmative link between the alleged injury and the conduct of an individual Defendant. Rizzo

v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 

To state a claim against a state official, the civil rights complainant must allege that the

official personally participated in the constitutional deprivation, or that a state supervisory

official was aware of the widespread abuses and with deliberate indifference to the inmate’s

constitutional rights failed to take action to prevent further misconduct. King v. Atiyeh, 814

F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Monell, 436 U.S. at 691; Williams v. Cash, 836 F.2d

1318, 1320 (11th Cir. 1988).

There is no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a theory of respondeat superior,

and, therefore, a defendant’s position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated a

plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not impose liability. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691; West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54 n.12 (1988); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723

F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1984).

Although Plaintiff names Joseph M. Arpaio, John Graham, and C.A. Rangel as

Defendants in the First Amended Complaint, he has not described any specific conduct by these

Defendants that violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and led to his injuries. Indeed, Plaintiff

does not mention any of these Defendants in either Count I or Count II of the First Amended

Complaint.

Accordingly, Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio, John Graham, and C.A. Rangel are subject

to dismissal from this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

B. John Does 1-10

Generally, the use of anonymous type appellations to identify defendants is not favored.

Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the plaintiff to include the names

Case 2:10-cv-02491-RCB--ECV Document 8 Filed 05/12/11 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

of the parties in the action. As a practical matter, it is impossible in most instances for the

United States Marshal or his designee to serve a summons and complaint, or amended

complaint, upon an anonymous defendant. In order to state a claim against an individual in a

civil rights action, Plaintiff must identify a specific individual who violated Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights. See Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371-72, 377. 

Plaintiff has not identified Defendants John Does 1-10 with enough specificity to state

a claim against any specific individual. Moreover, other than listing them as Defendants,

Plaintiff has not referred to them at all in either Count I or Count II of the First Amended

Complaint. Accordingly, Defendants John Does 1-10 are subject to dismissal from this action

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

Because no Defendants now remain, the First Amended Complaint is subject to dismissal

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

V. Failure to Comply with Two Year Statute of Limitations

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) mandates that the Court dismiss a complaint if it is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Moreover, “an

action may be dismissed . . . where the defense is complete and obvious from the face of the

pleadings.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984). In the absence of waiver,

the Court may raise the defense of statute of limitations sua sponte. Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm

Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 687 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Here, it appears from the face of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint that Plaintiff’s

action was not timely filed. In 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions, the applicable statute of limitations

is the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S.

261, 266, 274-76 (1985); Vaughan v. Grijalva, 927 F.2d 476, 478 (9th Cir. 1991). The Arizona

statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542(1);

Madden-Tyler v. Maricopa County, 189 Ariz. 462, 464 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1997); Vaughan, 927 F.2d

at 478.

Plaintiff’s claims in the First Amended Complaint center around actions that occurred

Case 2:10-cv-02491-RCB--ECV Document 8 Filed 05/12/11 Page 5 of 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

- 6 -

on, or about, January 8, 2008. However, Plaintiff did not file this action until November 17,

2010, almost three years after the actions that he complains about occurred. Accordingly,

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statute of limitations, and his First Amended Complaint

is also subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim as barred by the statute of limitations.

VI. Dismissal of First Amended Complaint Without Leave to Amend

For the above reasons, the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) will be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Also, because it is clear from the face

of the First Amended Complaint that the deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint cannot

be cured by amendment, the Court’s dismissal will be without leave to amend, and the Court

will order that the action be dismissed and judgment entered. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d

1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Broughton v. Cutter Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) and this action are dismissed for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment

accordingly.

(2) 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).

(3) 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 12 day of May, 2011. th

copies to plaintiff pro se and all counsel of record

Case 2:10-cv-02491-RCB--ECV Document 8 Filed 05/12/11 Page 6 of 6