Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01429/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01429-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abo Obaida Hussein
Plaintiff
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
Defendant

Document Text:

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 -

RP

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Abo Obaida Hussein, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-1429-PHX-DGC (MEA)

ORDER

Abo Obaida Hussein (Plaintiff), currently confined in the Maricopa County Fourth

Avenue Jail in Phoenix, Arizona (Fourth Avenue Jail), filed with the Clerk of the Court on

May 16, 2005 a pro se "Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner" (Document #1) (Complaint).

Plaintiff has not paid the two hundred and fifty dollar ($250.00) filing fee, but has filed a

certified "Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By A Prisoner Civil (Non-Habeas)"

(Application To Proceed) with the Complaint, which includes an "Inmate Account

Statement") (Account Statement). 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FILING FEE

Plaintiff’s certified Application To Proceed and Account Statement filed with the

Complaint make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

Application to Proceed will be granted. 

Case 2:05-cv-01429-DGC--MEA Document 5 Filed 12/22/05 Page 1 of 7
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 -

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee

of two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) for this action. Plaintiff’s Application To

Proceed indicates that for the six (6) months preceding the filing of the Complaint Plaintiff's

spendable average monthly balance was zero ($0.00) and his average monthly deposits

were z ero ($0.00). Accordingly, no initial partial filing fee will be assessed. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(b)(1). However, Plaintiff will be obligat ed for monthly payments of twenty percent

(20%) of the preceding month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account. These

payment s will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time

t he amount in Plaintiff’s account exceeds ten dollars ($10.00), until the filing fee is paid in

full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Plaintiff should take notice that if he is released before the filing fee is paid in full,

he must pay the remaining unpaid amount of the filing fee within one hundred and twenty

(120) day s of the date of his release. If Plaintiff fails to pay the remainder of the filing fee

within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the date of his release, t he action will be

dismissed, unless Plaintiff shows good cause, in writing, why he is unable to pay the

remainder of the filing fee.

Plaintiff also should take notice that a prisoner may not bring a civil action without

complete prepayment of the appropriate filing fee if t he prisoner has brought, on three (3)

or more occasions, an action or appeal in a federal court that was dismissed as frivolous,

as malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the

prisoner is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

STATUTORY SCREENING OF PRISONER COMPLAINTS

The Court is required to screen complaint s or amended complaints brought by

prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). T he Court must dismiss a complaint or portion

thereof if the 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 monet ary relief from a

Case 2:05-cv-01429-DGC--MEA Document 5 Filed 12/22/05 Page 2 of 7
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

Dismissal of a state criminal case is not a remedy that is available in a federal civil rights

action. It is well-settled that relief affecting the fact or duration of confinement is cognizable only

upon application for a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriquez 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Wolff v.

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974); Offet v. Solem, 823 F.2d 1256 (8th Cir. 1987). “[H]abeas corpus

is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement

and seeks immediate or speedier release, even though such a claim may come within the literal terms

of § 1983.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994) (citing Preiser, 411 U.S. at 488-490).

Moreover, the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), prevents a

- 3 -

defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). The Court also

must dismiss a complaint or p ort ion t hereof if Plaintiff fails to exhaust any administrative

remedy available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

If the Court determines t hat a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other

fact s, a p ro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend the 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 the complaint "lacks merit entirely." Id. at 1129. A 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.

The Court should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This

type of advice "would undermine the district judges' role as impartial decisionmakers."

Pliler v. Ford, 124 S.Ct. 2441, 2446 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131, n.13 (declining

to decide whether court was required to inform litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff's

Complaint will be dismissed without leave to amend because the Complaint cannot be

saved by amendment.

 COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges one (1) count in his Complaint. (Complaint at 4).

Named as Defendant in the Complaint is the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

(Complaint at 1-2). 

Plaintiff seeks a jury trial, dismissal of his state criminal case,1

 and monetary

Case 2:05-cv-01429-DGC--MEA Document 5 Filed 12/22/05 Page 3 of 7
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

federal court in most circumstances from directly interfering with ongoing criminal proceedings in

state court. 

- 4 -

damages. (Complaint at 7).

DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper Defendant. In Arizona, the

responsibilit y of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon the sheriff.

See A.R.S. § 11-441(A)(5); A.R.S. § 31-101. A sheriff’s office is simply an administrative

creation of the county sheriff to allow him to carry out his statutory dut ies, and not a

“person” amenable t o suit pursuant to § 1983. Therefore, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s

Office is subject to dismissal from this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and

1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

The deficiencies in Plaintiff's Complaint go beyond his failure to name a proper

Defendant. In Count I of the Complaint, Plaint iff claims that unspecified rights were

violated when all of his personal property was lost during a transfer from one housing unit

to another. (Complaint at 4). 

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must show that the conduct

of the Defendant deprived him of a federal const itutional right. Haygood v. Younger, 769

F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1020 (1986). However,

Plaintiff makes no reference whatsoever to a federal constitutional right in Count I of his

Complaint. 

Moreover, in general claims of "negligence" do not support a claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980). Specifically,

where the negligent conduct of a prison official causes the loss of a prisoner’s prop ert y ,

the loss does not amount to a deprivation under the Due Process Clause. Daniels v.

Williams, 474 U.S. 329, 331-332 (1986) (overruling Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981), to

Case 2:05-cv-01429-DGC--MEA Document 5 Filed 12/22/05 Page 4 of 7
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 -

t he ext ent t hat Parratt states that "mere lack of due care by a state official may ‘deprive’ an

individual of life, liberty, or property under the Fourteenth Amendment”). “[T]he Due

Process Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an official causing unintended

loss of or injury to life, liberty or property.” Daniels, 474 U.S. at 328 (emphasis in original).

Accordingly, Count I will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and

1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT AND ACTION

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519

(1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board

of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982); Rhodes v. Robinson,

612 F.2d 766, 772 (3d Cir. 1979). Further, a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint

may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled. Ivey, 673 F.2d

at 268. 

Because no Defendants or claims now remain, and because Plaintiff has failed to

allege a constitutional violation, the Complaint will be dismissed pursuant t o 28 U.S.C. §§

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. Moreover, because it is clear from the face of the Complaint that the deficiencies

in t he Complaint can not be cured by amendment, the Court’s dismissal will be without

leave to amend, and the Court will order that the action be dismissed and judgment entered.

See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Broughton v. Cutter Lab, 622

F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980)). 

MOTION FOR COUNSEL

On September 15, 2005, Plaint iff filed a "Motion 'Need Lawyer'" (Document #4)

(Motion). T here is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See

Ivey v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982);

Randall v. Wyrick, 642 F.2d 304 (8th Cir. 1981). The appointment of counsel under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is required only when "exceptional circumstances" are present. T errell

Case 2:05-cv-01429-DGC--MEA Document 5 Filed 12/22/05 Page 5 of 7
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

- 6 -

v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 

A determination with respect to exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation

of the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issue involved. Id. "Neit her of these

factors is disposit ive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision." Id.

(quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

Having considered bot h elements, it does not presently appear that exceptional

circumstances are present that would require the appointment of counsel in this case.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion will be denied. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) That Plaint iff's "Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis By A Prisoner Civil

(Non-Habeas)" filed with the Complaint is GRANTED; 

(2) That Plaintiff is OBLIGATED to pay the statutory filing fee of two hundred and

fifty dollars ($250.00) for this action. Based on average monthly balances and deposits of

zero ($0.00), Plaintiff will NOT BE ASSESSED an initial partial filing fee. However, Plaintiff

will be OBLIGATED for monthly payments of twenty percent (20%) of the preceding

month’s income credited to Plaint iff’s trust account. These payments will be forwarded by

the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in Plaintiff’s account

exceeds ten dollars ($10.00), until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). All

fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this Court’s Order to the Maricopa

County Sheriff filed concurrently herewith; 

(3) That Plaintiff's "Motion 'Need Lawyer'" (Document #4) is DENIED;

(4) That the "Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner" (Document #1) (Complaint) and

this action are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted, and the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED TO ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly;

(5) That the Clerk of Court is also DIRECTED TO MAKE AN ENTRY on the docket

Case 2:05-cv-01429-DGC--MEA Document 5 Filed 12/22/05 Page 6 of 7
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

- 7 -

in this matter indicating that the dismissal for failure to state a claim falls within the p urview

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 21st day of December, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01429-DGC--MEA Document 5 Filed 12/22/05 Page 7 of 7