Source: http://az.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20140509_0000575.DAZ.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-03-01 20:02:27
Document Index: 599108504

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1997', '§ 1446', '§1441', '§ 1331', '§ 1441', '§ 1446']

| Davis v. Albrect
Davis v. Albrect
Michael Dean Davis, Plaintiff,v.Richard Albrect, et al., Defendants.
On November 1, 2013, Plaintiff Michael Dean Davis, who is confined in the Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court, case number CV-013518 (Doc. 1, Exhibit 1). In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges violations of his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as claims under the Arizona Constitution and Arizona state law. Plaintiff named as Defendants Commissioner Richard Albrecht, Maricopa County Superior Court Judges Susanna Pineda and Teresa Sanders, MCAO[1] Jennifer Hanson, MCAO Jeffrey Duvenback, and OPDS[2] Attorneys Marvin Davis and Amy Bain....
On January 2, 2014, Defendants Jennifer Hanson, Jeffery Hanson, [3] and Albrecht removed the case to federal court based on federal subject matter jurisdiction, stating that they were served with the Complaint on December 17, 2013. On January 9, 2014, Defendants Albrecht, Pineda and Sanders filed a Motion to Dismiss based on absolute judicial immunity, or, alternatively, Plaintiff's failure to comply with Arizona's notice of claim statute. (Doc. 3.) Also on January 9, 2014, Defendants Duvenback and Jennifer Hanson filed a Motion to Dismiss based on prosecutorial immunity, or, alternatively, failure to state a claim against them. (Doc. 4.)
The Court will dismiss the Motions to Dismiss as moot. The Court is already statutorily required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity.[4] 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court will dismiss this action.
The Complaint facially shows that subject matter jurisdiction is proper in federal court and that the case was timely removed. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
A defendant may remove any civil action brought in state court over which the federal court would have original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). That is, a civil action that could have originally been brought in federal court may be removed from state to federal court. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). A federal court has original jurisdiction "of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331....
The Complaint in this case alleges violations of his federal constitutional rights. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Further, the case was timely removed. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
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 ). Plaintiff's Complaint will be dismissed for failure ...