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.

Nakanwagi v. Central Arizona Shelter Services Inc.

United States District Court, D. Arizona

May 30, 2017

Sarah Nathreen Nakanwagi, Plaintiff,
v.
Central Arizona Shelter Services Incorporated, Defendant.

          ORDER

          David G. Campbell United States District Judge

         Pro se Plaintiff Sarah Nathreen Nakanwagi filed a complaint against Defendant Central Arizona Shelter Services, Inc. (“CASS”) seeking various forms of relief for an alleged violation of her state, federal, and international rights. Doc. 1. Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 17. In response, Plaintiff has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Doc. 25. Neither party has requested oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

         I. Legal Standard.

         A party seeking summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Summary judgment is also appropriate against a party who “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit will preclude the entry of summary judgment, and the disputed evidence must be “such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

         II. Analysis.

         Plaintiff alleges that she was physically attacked by three CASS security guards while waiting to use the bathroom at a shelter.[1] She alleges physical and emotional injuries, and seeks a broad range of relief.

         A. Federal Law Claims.

         Plaintiff brings federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, 3617, and 28 U.S.C. § 1350.

         1. Sections 1981, 1982, 1988.

         Section 1981 guarantees “[a]ll persons . . . the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.” CBOCS W., Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442, 458 (2008). Plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating that Defendant's conduct or the conduct of the security guards interfered with her ability to make or enforce a contract. As a result, the Court will grant summary judgment as to Plaintiff's § 1981 claims.

         Section 1982 provides for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages for individuals who suffer intentional discrimination in employment. Plaintiff does not allege that she was employed by Defendant or was discriminated against as an employee. Thus, the Court will grant summary judgment as to Plaintiff's § 1982 claims.

         Section 1988 does not provide a cause of action, but allows for an award of attorneys' fees and expert fees.

         2. Section 1983.

         “Section 1983 is a vehicle by which plaintiffs can bring federal constitutional and statutory challenges to actions by state and local officials.” Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two distinct elements: (1) the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, (2) by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Dismissal of a § 1983 claim “is ...


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.