Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00195/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00195-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phoenix Memorial Hospital
Defendant
Phoenix Police Department
Defendant
Laura Ann Rogers
Plaintiff
Jamie Tadsen
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

Plaintiff was confined in the Maricopa County Estrella Jail when she filed the

Complaint.

TERMPSREF

RP

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Laura Ann Rogers, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Phoenix Arizona Police Department, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-195-PHX-DGC (DKD)

ORDER

On January 29, 2007, Plaintiff Laura Ann Rogers, who is confined in the Arizona

State Prison Complex-Perryville, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc. #1) pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

 Plaintiff did not pay the $350.00 civil action filing fee but filed an

uncertified Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 

By Order filed February 27, 2007 (Doc. #3), the Court denied Plaintiff's Application

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis without prejudice and gave Plaintiff 30 days from the filing

date of the Order to either pay the $350.00 filing fee or file a completed Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a six-month trust account statement. On March 19, 2007,

Plaintiff filed a "Motion To Request Additional Time" (Doc. #4) and on March 22, 2007 she

filed her Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis and six-month statement (Doc. #5). 

Case 2:07-cv-00195-DGC-DKD Document 9 Filed 08/07/07 Page 1 of 6
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 -

The Court will deny the "Motion To Request Additional Time" as moot, grant the

Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis, dismiss Defendant Phoenix Arizona Police

Department, and call for an answer to the Complaint from Defendant Jamie Tadsen. 

I. Motion To Request Additional Time 

On March 19, 2007, Plaintiff filed a "Motion To Request Additional Time" (Doc. #4).

In her Motion, Plaintiff requests an additional 30 days to file her Application To Proceed In

Forma Pauperis and six-month statement. Because Plaintiff filed her Application To

Proceed In Forma Pauperis and six-month statement within the Court’s 30-day deadline, the

Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion as moot.

II. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

On March 22, 2007, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. #5), which will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing

fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of

$11.20. The remainder of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the

previous month’s income each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government

agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 

III. 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). 

IV. Complaint

Plaintiff alleges one count in her Complaint. Defendant names the Phoenix Police

Department and Police Officer Jamie Tadsen as defendants. Plaintiff seeks monetary

damages and victim rape awareness training for the Defendants.

Case 2:07-cv-00195-DGC-DKD Document 9 Filed 08/07/07 Page 2 of 6
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 -

V. Dismissal of Defendant Phoenix Arizona Police Department

To impose liability upon Defendant Phoenix Arizona Police Department or the City

of Phoenix, Plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a particular official city policy or

established custom and that the policy or custom caused her to be subjected to a deprivation

of a constitutional right. Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 829-30 (1985) (Justice

Brennan, concurring); See also, Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services,

436 U.S. 658, 691, 694 (1978); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d

675, 681 (9th Cir. 1984).

There is no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a theory of respondeat superior,

and therefore a police department’s position as the employer of a person who allegedly

violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not impose liability. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691;

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54 n.12 (1988); Ybarra, 723 F.2d at 680-81.

Plaintiff makes no allegations in the Complaint regarding a particular policy or custom

of the Phoenix Arizona Police Department or the City of Phoenix. Accordingly, the Phoenix

Arizona Police Department is not a proper Defendant and will be dismissed from this action

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

VI. Answer to Complaint

In Count I of the Complaint, Plaintiff claims that her Fourth Amendment rights were

violated on or about October 6, 2006 when Defendant Jamie Tadsen, working “under the

Phoenix Arizona Police Department,” ordered the Phoenix Memorial Hospital to do a

“personal cavity search” on her while she was in the emergency room. Plaintiff alleges that

at the time she was a rape survivor who was still in “massive recovery from the rape” and

that Defendant Tadsen’s “unauthorized (without a warrant) cavity search caused Plaintiff

severe mental distress and massive flash backs.” These allegations adequately state a claim,

and the Court will require an answer to the Complaint from Defendant Jamie Tadsen.

VII. Warnings

A. Release

Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of her release.

Case 2:07-cv-00195-DGC-DKD Document 9 Filed 08/07/07 Page 3 of 6
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 - 4 -

Also, within 30 days of her release, she must either (1) notify the Court that she intends to

pay the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why she 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 serve Defendants, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a copy

of every document that she files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a certificate

stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, 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 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 v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s "Motion To Request Additional Time" (Doc. #4) is denied as moot.

(2) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #5) is granted. 

(3) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency,

Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $11.20.

(4) Defendant Phoenix Arizona Police Department is dismissed from this action

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

(5) Defendant Jamie Tadsen must answer the Complaint (Doc. #1).

(6) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the

Case 2:07-cv-00195-DGC-DKD Document 9 Filed 08/07/07 Page 4 of 6
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 - 5 -

Complaint (Doc. #1), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for

Defendant Jamie Tadsen.

(7) Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court

within 20 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not provide

service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order.

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

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

of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this Order, whichever is later, the action

may be dismissed as to Defendant not served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i).

(9) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the

Complaint, and a copy of this Order for future use.

(10) The United States Marshal must notify Defendant Jamie Tadsen of the

commencement of this action and request waiver of service of the summons pursuant to Rule

4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice to Defendant must include a copy

of this Order. The Marshal must immediately file requests for waivers that were returned as

undeliverable and waivers of service of the summons. If a waiver of service of summons is

not returned by Defendant within 30 days from the date the request for waiver was sent by

the Marshal, the Marshal must:

(a) personally serve copies of the Summons, Complaint, and this Order upon

Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2); and

(b) within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of service

for Defendant, along with evidence of the attempt to secure a waiver of service of the

summons and of the costs subsequently incurred in effecting service upon Defendant.

The costs of service must be enumerated on the return of service form (USM-285) and

must include the costs incurred by the Marshal for photocopying additional copies of

the Summons, Complaint, or this Order and for preparing new process receipt and

return forms (USM-285), if required. Costs of service will be taxed against the

personally served Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) and (5) of the Federal Rules of

Case 2:07-cv-00195-DGC-DKD Document 9 Filed 08/07/07 Page 5 of 6
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 - 6 -

Civil Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

(11) If Defendant agrees to waive service of the Summons and Complaint, he

must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not the Plaintiff.

(12) Defendant 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.

(13) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan pursuant to Rules

72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings.

DATED this 7th day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00195-DGC-DKD Document 9 Filed 08/07/07 Page 6 of 6