Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03252/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03252-1/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 KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Brown, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

TreyResearch.com, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3252-PHX-SMM (VAM)

ORDER

Plaintiff John Brown, confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence, filed

a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis. On April 4, 2006, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to pay the

full amount of the filing fee because Plaintiff had filed a Notice of Change of Address

indicating he had been released (Doc. #4). 

 On April 18, 2006, Plaintiff filed another Notice of Change of Address indicating he

was incarcerated in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence. Plaintiff then filed, on April

28, 2006, a Motion for Deferral of Filing Fee (Doc. #7) in which he asks that the Court grant

him in forma pauperis status because he is still incarcerated. On May 31, 2006, Plaintiff

filed a “Motion to Continue on the Inactive Calendar” (Doc. #9). 

Case 2:05-cv-03252-SMM--VAM Document 11 Filed 08/22/06 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 -

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Deferral of Filing Fee and Plaintiff’s

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

Plaintiff’s “Motion to Continue on Inactive Calendar.”

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. Plaintiff must

pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00. The Court will assess no initial partial filing fee. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The statutory 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 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 officer or 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 is required to grant leave to amend “if a complaint can possibly be

saved” but not if a complaint “lacks merit entirely.” Id. at 1129. The Court therefore should

grant leave to amend if the pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts or if it

appears at all possible that the defect can be corrected. Id. at 1130. Plaintiff’s Complaint

will be dismissed without leave to amend because the defects cannot be corrected.

III. Complaint

Plaintiff names the following Defendants in the Complaint: 1) TreyResearch.com; 2)

Tempe City Management; 3) Tempe Municipal Court; and 4) Tempe Police Department, City

of Tempe.

Case 2:05-cv-03252-SMM--VAM Document 11 Filed 08/22/06 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 -

Plaintiff’s sole ground for relief is that Defendants violated his Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights by illegally processing and executing false documents which led to

Plaintiff’s arrest and loss of freedom.

IV. Dismissal of Defendants

A. TreyResearch.com

To state a claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must “plead that (1) the defendants acting

under color of state law (2) deprived plaintiffs of rights secured by the Constitution or federal

statutes.” Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986); see also WMX

Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 197 F.3d 367, 372 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). Generally, private parties

are not acting under color of state law. See Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir.

1991).

Defendant TreyResearch.com appears to be a private party, and Plaintiff makes no

allegations demonstrating how Defendant TreyResearch.com acted under color of state law.

Accordingly, Defendant TreyResearch.com must be dismissed.

B. Municipal Defendants

A municipality may not be held liable under § 1983 unless its policy or custom caused

the alleged constitutional injury. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence

and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 166 (1993); Monell v. Department of Social Services,

436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Thus, a municipality may not be sued solely because an injury

was inflicted by one of its employees or agents. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d

1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). Rather, the municipality is liable only when the execution of its

policy or custom inflicts the constitutional injury. Id.; Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429

F.3d 858, 868 (9th Cir. 2005). Therefore, a § 1983 claim against a municipal defendant

“cannot succeed as a matter of law” unless the 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, 435

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

Case 2:05-cv-03252-SMM--VAM Document 11 Filed 08/22/06 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 -

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)), pet. for cert. filed, No. 05-1283, 74 U.S.L.W. 3587 (April 4, 2006).

In this case, Plaintiff does not claim that any of the municipal defendants created or

executed policies which resulted in the constitutional injuries Plaintiff alleges. Accordingly,

Defendants Tempe City Management, Tempe Municipal Court, and Tempe Police

Department will be dismissed.

V. Failure to State a Claim

A prisoner’s claim for damages is not cognizable 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

(1994).

In this case, Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants processed and executed false documents

which led to his arrest and incarceration necessarily implies that his conviction is invalid.

Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his conviction has been reversed, expunged, or

otherwise invalidated, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Heck, and the Court will dismiss the

Complaint.

VI. Motion

In his May 31, 2006 “Motion to Continue on the Inactive Calendar,” Plaintiff states

that he is unable to conduct legal research and asks that the Court stay proceedings in this

case until Plaintiff is released in December 2006. In light of the Court’s dismissal of this

action, Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied as moot.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s April 28, 2006 Motion for Deferral of Filing Fee (Doc. #7) is granted.

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

is granted.

(3) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency,

Plaintiff must pay the $250.00 filing fee and is assessed no initial partial filing fee.

Case 2:05-cv-03252-SMM--VAM Document 11 Filed 08/22/06 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 -

(4) The Complaint ( Doc. #1) and this action are dismissed for failure to state a claim

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment

accordingly. 

(5) 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).

(6) Plaintiff’s May 31, 2006 “Motion to Continue on the Inactive Calendar” (Doc. #9)

is denied as moot.

DATED this 21st day of August, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03252-SMM--VAM Document 11 Filed 08/22/06 Page 5 of 5