Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00663/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00663-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to state

a claim. (Doc. 7.) Because the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires screening of

prisoner complaints and the Court concludes that Plaintiff sufficiently alleges a viable claim,

Defendant’s motion to dismiss will be denied. 

JDDL-K

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Beauford Powell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Shawn Magness, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-0663-PHX-GMS (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff Beauford Powell, who is confined in the Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix,

Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which the Court

dismissed with leave to amend. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint.1

(Doc. 6.) The Court will dismiss two of Plaintiff’s claims and order Defendant Magness

served with the First Amended Complaint, but will stay the filing of a response to the First

Amended Complaint pending further Court order. Defendant will be required to file a notice

every 90 days regarding the status of Plaintiff’s state criminal cases. 

Case 2:12-cv-00663-GMS--DKD Document 8 Filed 07/20/12 Page 1 of 8
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 -

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 context-specific 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)).

///

Case 2:12-cv-00663-GMS--DKD Document 8 Filed 07/20/12 Page 2 of 8
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

 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/112011/m4990631.pdf

(last visited July 13, 2012). 

JDDL-K - 3 -

II. First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff alleges three counts for violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment

rights. He sues Phoenix Police Officer Shawn Magness. Plaintiff seeks compensatory relief.

All of Plaintiff’s claims are based on the same facts, as follows: on September 11,

2011, Plaintiff was stopped by Officer Magness upon exiting a convenience store. Magness

told Plaintiff that he was not under arrest, but handcuffed Plaintiff for Magness’s protection.

(Doc. 6 at 3.) After handcuffing Plaintiff, Magness informed Plaintiff that he suspected him

in a theft. (Id. at 4.) Magness questioned Plaintiff, but did not inform Plaintiff of his rights

under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Magness asked Plaintiff to consent to

Magness searching him; Plaintiff refused to consent. (Doc. 6 at 4.) Nevertheless, Magness

searched Plaintiff, including “digging” into his pockets, and removed a wallet, two phones,

various papers, and forty dollars. (Id. at 3A.) Magness then took Plaintiff to the Fourth

Avenue Jail, where Plaintiff was booked. 

Plaintiff contends that Magness misrepresented that Plaintiff was suspected of theft

to detain and harass him. He further alleges that Magness violated his Fourth Amendment

right against unreasonable search and seizure where Plaintiff refused to consent to a search

of his person. Plaintiff contends the same acts also violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth

Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection rights. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of

Magness’s wrongful acts, he was arrested, which resulted in the loss of his job and emotional

and financial harm. 

Additional Background

Records available on-line reflect that Plaintiff is being held at the Fourth Avenue Jail

in connection with two criminal cases currently pending in Maricopa County Superior Court,

case## CR2011-147242 and CR2011-007861.2

 Plaintiff is also alleged to have violated the

Case 2:12-cv-00663-GMS--DKD Document 8 Filed 07/20/12 Page 3 of 8
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

 See http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/case Info.

asp?caseNumber=CR2011-147242 (last visited July 13, 2012).

4

 See n.2, supra.

JDDL-K - 4 -

terms of probation in case# CR2008-160996.3 The docket for CR2011-147242 reflects that

Plaintiff is charged with drug offenses with an offense date of September 11, 2011, i.e., the

same date as the events at issue in this case. Plaintiff was released on bond, but was

subsequently arrested on new charges in CR2011-007861.4

III. Failure to State a Claim

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the conduct about which

he complains was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) the conduct

deprived him of a constitutional right. Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699

(9th Cir. 1988). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury as a

result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link between

the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377

(1976). 

A. Due Process

Plaintiff asserts a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process

rights based on the same conduct that he alleges violated his Fourth Amendment right to be

free of unreasonable searches and seizures. “As a general matter, the Court has always been

reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because the guideposts for

responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.” Collins v.

Harker Heights, 502 U.S. 115, 125 (1992). “Where a particular Amendment ‘provides an

explicit textual source of constitutional protection’ against a particular sort of government

behavior, ‘that Amendment, not the [Fourteenth Amendment’s] more generalized notion of

‘substantive due process,’ must be the guide for analyzing these claims.’” Albright v. Oliver,

510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)). 

In this case, Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim is

subsumed by the Fourth Amendment’s more discrete right to be free from unreasonable

Case 2:12-cv-00663-GMS--DKD Document 8 Filed 07/20/12 Page 4 of 8
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 -

searches and seizures. Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff asserts a violation of his due

process rights based on search or seizure, he fails to state a claim and his due process claim

will be dismissed. 

B. Equal Protection

Plaintiff also asserts a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. “[T]he Equal Protection Clause does not make every minor difference in the

application of laws to different groups a violation of our Constitution.” Salyer Land Co. v.

Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719, 725 (1973). Rather, the Equal

Protection Clause requires that all persons similarly situated be treated alike. Plyer v. Doe,

457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982). Therefore, to state a claim under § 1983 for violation of the Equal

Protection Clause, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant acted with the intent to

discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class and that the

defendant’s actions denied the plaintiff a fundamental right. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d

1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). Absent allegations that he is a member of a protected class or

that a fundamental right has been violated, a plaintiff must allege facts to support that he has

been intentionally treated differently from others who are similarly-situated without a

reasonable basis therefor. See Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000).

Conclusory allegations do not suffice. See Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan

Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977). 

Plaintiff does not allege the violation of a fundamental right. While Plaintiff does

allege that he is Black, he does not allege facts to support that Magness targeted or

discriminated against him based upon his race. Plaintiff also fails to allege facts to support

that he was intentionally treated differently than similarly-situated individuals without a

reasonable basis therefor. Accordingly, Plaintiff also fails to state an Equal Protection claim.

IV. Heck v. Humphrey and Wallace v. Kato

A prisoner’s claim for damages under § 1983 must be dismissed if a judgment in favor

of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment

against him, unless the prisoner demonstrates that the conviction or sentence has previously

Case 2:12-cv-00663-GMS--DKD Document 8 Filed 07/20/12 Page 5 of 8
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 -

been reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-

87 (1994). In this case, Plaintiff alleges Magness violated his Fourth Amendment rights by

detaining him and searching him without his consent, a warrant, or probable cause and which

resulted in his subsequent arrest. Charges incident to that arrest are currently pending against

Plaintiff and appear to be based in part evidence obtained pursuant to the search challenged

by Plaintiff in this action. If Plaintiff is convicted, it appears that success on his Fourth

Amendment claim in this case would necessarily imply the invalidity of such conviction. 

In Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007), the Supreme Court stated that:

[i]f a plaintiff files a false arrest claim before he has been convicted (or files

any other claim related to rulings that will likely be made in a pending or

anticipated criminal trial), it is within the power of the district court, and in

accord with common practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case or

the likelihood of a criminal case is ended. If the plaintiff is ultimately

convicted, and if the stayed civil suit would impugn that conviction, Heck will

require dismissal of the civil action; otherwise, the civil action will proceed,

absent some other bar to suit. 

(citations omitted and emphasis added).

Liberally construed, Plaintiff states a claim against Defendant Magness for violation

of his Fourth Amendment rights. As discussed herein, a criminal case related to Plaintiff’s

remaining civil claim in this case is currently pending. The Court therefore finds that a stay

of that claim appears to be appropriate in this civil case. If Plaintiff is ultimately convicted

in his criminal case and his conviction is not reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated,

the remaining claim in his First Amended Complaint will be barred by Heck, because success

on the claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. See Wallace, 127 S.Ct.

at 1098; Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. However, if Plaintiff is not convicted, an answer to this

claim will be appropriate. 

The Court will order that the First Amended Complaint be served on Defendant

Magness, but the Court will stay the filing of a response to the First Amended Complaint

pending further Court order. However, Defendant will be required to file a notice every 90

days regarding the status of Plaintiff’s pending criminal cases in Maricopa County Superior

Court. 

///

Case 2:12-cv-00663-GMS--DKD Document 8 Filed 07/20/12 Page 6 of 8
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 -

V. 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.

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 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 v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d at 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Due Process and Equal Protection claims in Counts I and II are

dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 6.)

(2) Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied. (Doc. 7.) 

(3) Defendant Magness must not answer or otherwise respond to the First

Amended Complaint until further order of the Court. 

(4) Pending further Court order, Defendant Magness must file a notice in this case

regarding the status of Plaintiff’s pending criminal cases in Maricopa County Superior Court

Case 2:12-cv-00663-GMS--DKD Document 8 Filed 07/20/12 Page 7 of 8
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 - 8 -

every 90 days.

DATED this 20th day of July, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00663-GMS--DKD Document 8 Filed 07/20/12 Page 8 of 8