Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00441/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00441-0/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

TERMPSREF 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Carlos J. Lopez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sergeant Seth Jahnke, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-441-PHX-RCB (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Carlos J. Lopez, who is represented by attorney Daniel R. Ortega, Jr., has

paid the filing fee and has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Doc. 1). Plaintiff has invoked the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over his state law

claims. The Court will order Defendants to answer the Complaint.

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). 

. . . .

. . . .

Case 2:11-cv-00441-RCB Document 5 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 3
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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

II. Complaint

In his seven-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendants City of Phoenix Police

Department Sergeant Seth Jahnke and the City of Phoenix. Plaintiff asserts that, in the

course of conducting a surveillance operation designed to identify and arrest Plaintiff for an

alleged aggravated assault and battery, Defendant Jahnke became started when he saw

Plaintiff walking towards him and shot Plaintiff in the shoulder.

In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jahnke’s conduct was unjustified and

constituted an unreasonable seizure and an excessive use of force, in violation of Plaintiff’s

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In Count Two, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant

City of Phoenix, through the City of Phoenix Police Department, has a policy or custom of

inadequately supervising and training its police officers, that the policies or customs

demonstrate a deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and that the policies

or customs caused a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Plaintiff also contends that Defendant Jahnke’s conduct constitutes an assault (Count

Three), a battery (Count Four), and a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Arizona

Constitution (Count Six). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants were negligent or grossly

negligent (Count Five) and their conduct warrants the imposition of punitive damages (Count

Seven). As to his state law claims, Plaintiff alleges that he served Defendants with a Notice

of Claim, as required by Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-821.01, and that the claim has been

deemed denied.

Plaintiff demands a jury trial and seeks monetary damages and attorney’s fees and

costs.

The Court will require Defendants to answer the Complaint.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Defendants must answer the Complaint. 

(2) Plaintiff must either serve each Defendant or seek a waiver of service for each

Defendant. 

Case 2:11-cv-00441-RCB Document 5 Filed 03/18/11 Page 2 of 3
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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

(3) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or

complete service of the Summons and Complaint on a Defendant within 120 days of the

filing of the Complaint, the action may be dismissed as to each Defendant not served. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(m).

(4) Defendants must answer the Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate

motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

(5) Any answer or response must state the specific Defendant by name on whose

behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, response, or other motion or paper that

does not identify the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed.

(6) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson pursuant to

Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as

authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

DATED this 17th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00441-RCB Document 5 Filed 03/18/11 Page 3 of 3