Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00310/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00310-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Janice Walker, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Inc., Anthony

Young, Sharon Rauseo, Bruce Plenk, Peter

Akmajian, and Pamela Brown,

Defendants. _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 08-310 TUC DCB

ORDER

Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the Court screened her

Complaint on September 8, 2008. The Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a

claim and granted her leave to file an Amended Complaint. 

On September 29, 2008, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and a Motion for

Service by the U.S. Marshal. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is identical to the Complaint

this Court dismissed, except for the addition of allegations that “the Arizona Foundation for

Legal Services and Education and Legal Services Corporation provide funding for SALA,

along with overseeing compliance with their Grievance Procedures, which is legally

necessary to receive this funding.” (Amended Complaint at 1.) Plaintiff also added the

following charge: “. . . Both State and Federal funding laws that these organizations oversee

compliance of were being violated. Both organizations were kept informed of the continuing

problems at SALA and their refusal to adhere to Grievance Procedures to hold a Grievance

Hearing that I could participate in, which funding law requires. Both organizations allowed

this illegal conduct to continue for months and have refused to ever address the illegal refusal

of SALA to allow me to participate in a Grievance Hearing. According to law, SALA

Case 4:08-cv-00310-DCB Document 12 Filed 10/08/08 Page 1 of 2
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

funding should be cut off from both organizations, but hasn’t been, making these

organizations both guilty of legal violations in addition to SALA.” (Amended Complaint at

12.)

As this Court explained in its screening Order, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to support

her disability discrimination claim because she merely alleges conduct that might be legal

malpractice. Plaintiff fails to allege a specific accommodation that she requested and was

denied by the Defendants. Her allegations that Defendant Plank made sexual innuendoes is

insufficient to support a claim of sexual harassment or gender discrimination. Her

constitutional claims fail because there is no evidence that the Defendants were state actors

or that their conduct may have been anything more than rudeness or mere negligence.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Service by the U.S. Marshal

(document 11) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Complaint is dismissed for failure

to state a claim.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment

accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this

Order to the judges of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in the

following cases: CV 07-478 TUC RCC, CV 08-134 TUC CKJ, CV 08-377 TUC RCC, CV

08-412 TUC BPV, and CV 08-413 TUC RCC.

DATED this 6th day of October, 2008.

copy to RCC, CKJ, BPV on 10/6/08 by cjs

Case 4:08-cv-00310-DCB Document 12 Filed 10/08/08 Page 2 of 2