Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02551/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02551-1/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 MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jason Lee Cepeda, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Superior Court, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2551-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

I. Background

On December 20, 2007, Plaintiff Jason Lee Cepeda, who is confined in the Arizona

State Prison Complex-Lewis in Buckeye, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a

January 9, 2008 Order, the Court denied the Application to Proceed because it was

incomplete. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a complete Application to Proceed.

On January 18, 2008, Plaintiff filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis. In a January 28, 2008 Order, the Court granted the second Application to Proceed

and dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days

to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order.

On February 7, 2008, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. In a March 19, 2008

Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to

allege a proper jurisdictional basis for the lawsuit. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file

a second amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order.

Case 2:07-cv-02551-MHM--MEA Document 12 Filed 04/25/08 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 -

On April 11, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #11). The

Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend.

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). 

III. Second Amended Complaint

In his two-count Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendants Cactus Police

Department and Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio.

In Count One, Plaintiff claims he was “housed as a maximum inmate wrongfully.”

He alleges: “On August 30[,] 2005[,] I was arrested on a false charge of theft of means[.] I

was then transported to the 4th Ave Jail[,] booked[,] and housed as a maximum inmate[,]

where I was then assaulted by other maximum inmates.” In Count Two, Plaintiff contends

that he was falsely imprisoned because he “was falsely accused of committing the crime of

theft of means by the officers of the Cactus Police Department.” He states that he told the

officer that he did not commit the crime and “even gave them the name of the person who

did do the crime.” He claims the officers “dismissed [his] confession and still arrested

[him].”

In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary compensation.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against persons acting under color of state law

who have violated rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and federal law. 42

Case 2:07-cv-02551-MHM--MEA Document 12 Filed 04/25/08 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

- 3 -

U.S.C. § 1983; see also Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F.3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995).

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim because he has failed to allege any constitutional or

federal-law violations.

In addition, to state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they

suffered a specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an

affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode,

423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). To state a claim against a supervisory official, the civil

rights complainant must allege that the supervisory official personally participated in the

constitutional deprivation or that the supervisory official was aware of widespread abuses

and, with deliberate indifference to the inmate’s constitutional rights, failed to take action to

prevent further misconduct. See Ortez v. Washington County, 88 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir.

1996); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,

568 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436

U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978). There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and

therefore, a defendant’s position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not impose liability. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691-92; Taylor,

880 F.2d at 1045.

Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Arpaio or Defendant Cactus Police

Department personally participated in a constitutional deprivation or that they were aware

of widespread abuses and, with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights,

failed to take action to prevent further misconduct, or that they formed policies that resulted

in Plaintiff’s injuries. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendants Arpaio

and Cactus Police Department.

Because Plaintiff has failed to allege any constitutional or federal-law violations and

has failed to state a claim against Defendants Arpaio and Cactus Police Department, the

Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

. . . .

. . . .

Case 2:07-cv-02551-MHM--MEA Document 12 Filed 04/25/08 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 -

V. Dismissal without Leave to Amend

The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint without leave to

amend. “Leave to amend need not be given if a complaint, as amended, is subject to

dismissal.” Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). The

Court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where Plaintiff has previously

been permitted to amend his complaint. Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States,

90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996). Repeated failure to cure deficiencies is one of the factors

to be considered in deciding whether justice requires granting leave to amend. Moore, 885

F.2d at 538. 

Plaintiff has made three efforts at crafting a viable complaint and appears unable to

do so despite specific instructions from the Court. Further opportunities would be futile.

Therefore, the Court, in its discretion, will dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

without leave to amend. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #11) is dismissed for failure to

state a claim, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

(2) 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 24th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02551-MHM--MEA Document 12 Filed 04/25/08 Page 4 of 4