Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00101/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00101-0/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 KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Laura L. Medley, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-101-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff Laura L. Medley, who is confined in the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye

Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will dismiss the action.

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 $2.00. 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 2:08-cv-00101-MHM--DKD Document 3 Filed 02/21/08 Page 1 of 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

- 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). Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed without leave to amend because the

defects cannot be corrected.

III. Complaint

Plaintiff names Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio as Defendant to the

Complaint. Plaintiff alleges two grounds for relief in the Complaint: (1) Article IV (e) of

the Interstate Agreement on Detainers and Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights were

violated when Defendant’s deputy refused to take custody of Plaintiff during an interstate

transfer after Plaintiff informed the deputy that she could not go without her medications; and

(2) Article V(c) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers and Plaintiff’s Fourteenth

Amendment rights were violated by the same incident. Plaintiff seeks money damages and

injunctive relief.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

Pursuant to Article V(c) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, 18 U.S.C. App. § 2,

If the appropriate authority shall refuse or fail to accept temporary custody of

said person, or in the event that an action on the indictment, information, or

complaint on the basis of which the detainer has been lodged is not brought to

trial within the period provided in article III or article IV hereof, the

appropriate court of the jurisdiction where the indictment, information, or

complaint has been pending shall enter an order dismissing the same with

prejudice, and any detainer based thereon shall cease to be of any force or

effect.

Interstate Agreement on Detainers, § 2, 18 U.S.C. App. 2.

Case 2:08-cv-00101-MHM--DKD Document 3 Filed 02/21/08 Page 2 of 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

1

This Court’s docket does not show any pending criminal charges against Plaintiff in

this Court.

- 3 -

Plaintiff alleges that she was being transferred to the custody of the Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office. The Court assumes that Plaintiff was being transferred for the purpose of

being prosecuted on criminal charges in the Maricopa County Superior Court.1

 Accordingly,

Plaintiff must raise any claims about the propriety of her transfer in the court “where the

indictment, information, or complaint has been pending,” the Maricopa County Superior

Court. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff is seeking money damages, the Court notes that

such relief is not available under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers.

To the extent that Plaintiff raises claims under the due process provisions of the

Fourteenth Amendment, she has also failed to state a claim. First, the Court notes that

Plaintiff has alleged no adverse affects on her criminal proceedings as a result of Defendant’s

failure to accept custody of her on the date in question. Plaintiff affirmatively alleges that

she was transported to the custody of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office approximately

10 days after the date in question, and Plaintiff does not allege facts suggesting that she was

harmed by the 10-day delay.

Further, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to challenge the propriety of her ongoing

criminal proceedings in state court, the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401

U.S. 37 (1971), prevents a federal court from directly interfering with ongoing criminal

proceedings in state court. The Younger abstention doctrine bars requests for declaratory and

monetary relief for constitutional injuries arising out of a plaintiff’s current state criminal

prosecution, Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986), and applies while the case

works its way through the state appellate process. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council

of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 369 (1989) (“[f]or Younger purposes, the State’s

trial-and-appeals process is treated as a unitary system”); Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S.

592, 608 (1975) (“Virtually all of the evils at which Younger is directed would inhere in

Case 2:08-cv-00101-MHM--DKD Document 3 Filed 02/21/08 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

federal intervention prior to completion of state appellate proceedings, just as surely as they

would if such intervention occurred at or before trial.”) 

Additionally, this Court only has jurisdiction to adjudicate issues that are currently in

controversy and thereby ripe for review. 18 Unnamed John Smith Prisoners v. Meese, 871

F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, if Plaintiff's criminal proceedings have not concluded,

the issue of Plaintiff’s detainer and transfer would not be ripe for review.

The Court will dismiss the case and this action for failure to state a claim.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, filed with the Complaint,

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 $2.00.

(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 counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 19th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00101-MHM--DKD Document 3 Filed 02/21/08 Page 4 of 4