Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jimenez v. Phoenix Police Department

United States District Court, D. Arizona

January 16, 2015

Marco Antonio Jimenez, Plaintiff,
v.
Phoenix Police Department, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

BRIDGET S. BADE, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on its own review. On November 4, 2014, Plaintiff commenced this action and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2.) Plaintiff then filed several supplements to his Complaint alleging additional facts and legal theories. (Docs. 8, 9, 10.)

The Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status. (Doc. 11.) However, Plaintiff's supplements made it unclear whether Plaintiff intended to litigate the claims in his Complaint, or whether he wanted to file an Amended Complaint that included additional allegations. Therefore, on December 18, 2014, the Court struck Plaintiff's supplements and ordered Plaintiff either to file an Amended Complaint that included all of his factual and legal allegations, or to notify the Court that he wished to proceed on only the factual and legal allegations included in the Complaint. (Doc. 11 at 3.)

The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the December 18, 2014 Order could result in dismissal of his case for failure to comply with Court orders pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). (Doc. 11 at 4.) The January 5, 2015 deadline to respond to the December 18, 2014 Order has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, notified the Court that he wishes to proceed on the claims in his Complaint, or otherwise responded to that Order. The Court could dismiss this action based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with the December 18, 2014 Order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). However, in an abundance of caution and in view of the procedural history of this case, the Court interprets Plaintiff's failure to respond to its December 18, 2014 Order as an indication that he wishes to proceed only on the claims in his Complaint (Doc. 1), and screens that pleading pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

I. Legal Standard - 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

When a party has been granted in forma pauperis status, the district court "shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines" that the "allegation of poverty is untrue, " or that the "action or appeal" is "frivolous or malicious, " "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, " or "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Although much of § 1915 details how prisoners can file proceedings in forma pauperis, § 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).

"[A] complaint containing both factual allegations and legal conclusions is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Furthermore, "a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially recognized facts available to contradict them." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). "A case is malicious if it was filed with the intention or desire to harm another." Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005).

II. The Allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint

On November 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court against the City of Phoenix Police Department, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO), the Maricopa County Attorney's Office (MCAO), the State of Arizona, and the District Court of Arizona. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff claims that on July 2, 2008, he was falsely charged with assaulting a police officer and was detained in the Maricopa County Jail. (Doc. 1 at 1.) He further argues that he was later assigned to administrative segregation where the MCSO served him "cold beans and maggots, and wormwood" and graham crackers with "peanut butter [that] was possibly laced with arsenic" to try to "do away" with Plaintiff because he had filed lawsuits against the MCSO. ( Id. at 1-2.)

Plaintiff further alleges that after he filed claims against the City of Phoenix, the State of Arizona, the MCSO, and the MCAO, the MCSO bribed the judges involved in those suits to find the cases moot or frivolous, and the bribes were in the amount of 60 million dollars, the "same amount Plaintiff was claiming" in his lawsuits. ( Id. )

Plaintiff requests the following relief: "all civil remedies, criminal penalties imposed, " subpoenas against the defendants to show up in the courts of Arizona, fair and speedy trials, and an audit regarding why there has been an abuse of discretion by the courts. ( Id. at 3.)

Although Plaintiff does not specifically identify the basis for the Court's jurisdiction, liberally construing the Complaint, he appears to allege claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

III. Plaintiff's Complaint Fails to State a Claim

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts supporting that (1) the conduct about which he complains was committed by a person acting under the color of state law, and (2) the conduct deprived him of a federal constitutional or statutory right. Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.