Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00235/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00235-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jared Lowe
Defendant
Mykel Moller
Defendant
Matthew Morgan
Defendant
James Earl Phillips
Plaintiff
Phoenix Police Department
Defendant
Robert Ryan
Defendant
Jimmy Wing
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

JDDL-K

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Earl Phillips, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Phoenix Police Department, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-235-PHX-MHM (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff James Earl Phillips, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexDouglas, filed a “Motion for Leave to File Delayed Civil Rights Complaint” and lodged a

pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis. The Court directed the Clerk of Court to file the Complaint and

Application to Proceed, granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status, and dismissed the

Complaint with leave to amend.

On May 20, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. #15). The Court

will dismiss the Amended Complaint with leave to amend.

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.

Case 2:10-cv-00235-JWS Document 16 Filed 06/09/10 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

JDDL-K - 2 -

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.

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). The Court

should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type of advice “would

undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225,

231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to decide whether the court was

required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint will be

dismissed for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend because the Amended Complaint

may possibly be saved by further amendment.

II. Amended Complaint

Plaintiff names Phoenix Police Officers Mykel Moller, Matthew Morgan, Jared Lowe,

Jimmy Wing, and Robert Ryan as Defendants in the Amended Complaint.

Case 2:10-cv-00235-JWS Document 16 Filed 06/09/10 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

JDDL-K - 3 -

Plaintiff raises six grounds for relief in the Amended Complaint. In Counts I through

V, Plaintiff claims that Defendants Morgan, Lowe, Wing, Ryan, and Moller violated his

Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they stopped Plaintiff, who was on

a bicycle, slammed him to the ground, handcuffed him, and punched his face and body with

their fists and boots. In Count VI, Plaintiff claims that his Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth

Amendment rights were violated when Defendants questioned him about drugs and drug

dealers and then beat him a second time when he would not give them information. Plaintiff

claims that Defendants also denied him medical care.

 Plaintiff seeks money damages.

III. Failure to State a Claim

A. Failure to Allege a Jurisdictional Basis

Plaintiff did not use the first page of the court-approved form and therefore did not

allege a jurisdictional basis in his Amended Complaint. Federal courts have limited

jurisdiction, and limitations on the court’s jurisdiction must neither be disregarded nor

evaded. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). The Court is

obligated to determine sua sponte whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. See Valdez v.

Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (If

the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must

dismiss the action.”).

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “[a] pleading that states

a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction . . . .” In order to proceed in federal court, Plaintiff must demonstrate some right

of action and legal entitlement to the damages he seeks. In a case challenging his conditions

of confinement while a federal prisoner, Plaintiff’s most likely source of a right to sue is 42

U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has jurisdiction over such cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a).

Plaintiff has not alleged that this case arises pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or that the

Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a). See Watson v. Chessman, 362 F.

Supp. 2d 1190, 1194 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (“The court will not . . . infer allegations supporting

Case 2:10-cv-00235-JWS Document 16 Filed 06/09/10 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

JDDL-K - 4 -

federal jurisdiction; federal subject matter [jurisdiction] must always be affirmatively

alleged.”). Therefore, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with leave to

amend.

B. Excessive Force

Plaintiff should also note, as pointed out in the first screening Order, that a claim for

excessive force during arrest arises from the Fourth Amendment. To state a Fourth

Amendment excessive force claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that force used

during a personal seizure was so excessive as to be unreasonable in light of the facts and

circumstances of the individual case. Smith v. City of Fontana, 818 F.2d 1411, 1416 (9th

Cir. 1987). In determining whether an officer acted reasonably under the Fourth

Amendment, the Court considers the “severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect

poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively

resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Hopkins v. Andaya, 958 F.2d 881,

885 (9th Cir. 1992).

 The Supreme Court has stated:

The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged

from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather

than with 20/20 vision of hindsight.

 . . . .

The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the

fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second

judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and

rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in

a particular situation.

 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989) (citations omitted).

Plaintiff has again failed to include information about the severity of the crime for

which he was stopped or about the circumstances of the arrest, such as whether he resisted

arrest or attempted to flee.

IV. Leave to Amend

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint will be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may

Case 2:10-cv-00235-JWS Document 16 Filed 06/09/10 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

JDDL-K - 5 -

submit a second amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of

Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a second amended complaint.

If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the second amended

complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff.

In any second amended complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements telling

the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) name of the

Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to do; (4) how

the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of Plaintiff’s

constitutional right; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of that

Defendant’s conduct. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).

Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he names as a Defendant. If Plaintiff

fails to affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific injury

suffered by Plaintiff, the allegation against that Defendant will be dismissed for failure to

state a claim. Further, Plaintiff must comply with any specific directions set out by the Court

in its discussion of individual claims. Conclusory allegations that a Defendant or group of

Defendants have violated a constitutional right are not acceptable, and will be dismissed.

Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “Second

Amended Complaint.” The second amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its

entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original

Complaint or Amended Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per

count.

A second amended complaint supersedes the original and first amended complaints.

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard

Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat

an original and first amended complaints as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any

cause of action that was raised in the original or first amended complaints is waived if it is

not raised in a second amended complaint. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.

1987).

Case 2:10-cv-00235-JWS Document 16 Filed 06/09/10 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

JDDL-K - 6 -

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 “Strike”

Because the Amended Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a claim, if

Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in this

Order, the dismissal may count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal

a civil judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more

prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal

in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

E. 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, 963 F.2d at

Case 2:10-cv-00235-JWS Document 16 Filed 06/09/10 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

JDDL-K - 7 -

1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the

Court).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The Amended Complaint (Doc. #15) is dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a second amended complaint in

compliance with this Order.

(2) If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk

of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with

prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

(3) The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a court-approved form for filing a civil

rights complaint by a prisoner.

DATED this 6th day of June, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00235-JWS Document 16 Filed 06/09/10 Page 7 of 7