Valencia v. Vasquez, CV 13-0655-PHX-RCB (JFM)

Decision Date06 June 2013
Docket NumberNo. CV 13-0655-PHX-RCB (JFM),CV 13-0655-PHX-RCB (JFM)
PartiesErnesto Valencia, Plaintiff, v. Lt. Vasquez #5241, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Arizona
ORDER

On April 2, 2013, Plaintiff Ernesto Valencia, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex, Winchester Unit, in Tucson, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a May 10, 2013 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order.

On June 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 10).1 The Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim 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. 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-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (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 679. 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 681.

But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts must "continue to construe pro se filings liberally." Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A "complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] 'must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)).

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). The Court will dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because the First Amended Complaint may possibly be saved by amendment, the Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend.

II. First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff alleges one count of racial profiling, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. He names as Defendant Phoenix Police Lieutenant Vasquez #5241. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages.

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the very same facts that the Court found deficient in in Plaintiff's original Complaint. Plaintiff again alleges that he was arrested and booked on unspecified charges after Lieutenant Vasquez told Plaintiff that he fit the description of a suspect. According to Plaintiff, the suspect in question was described as a white male with long, light brown hair who was heavily tattooed and wearing a white tank top. Plaintiff asserts that he is tattooed and was wearing a tank top but that he is Hispanic, with long, dark brown hair. Plaintiff fails to see how he fits the description of a white male with long, light brown hair. As in its initial Order, the Court construes these allegations as asserting claims for discriminatory law enforcement in violation of Plaintiff's federal constitutional rights.

Additional Background

According to records available online, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to burglary in Maricopa County Superior Court case #CR2013-107179.2 Plaintiff was sentenced on April 29, 2013 to 3.5 years in prison.3

III. Failure to State a Claim

As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, 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 affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).

To state a claim against a defendant, "[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights." Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). For an individual to be liable in his official capacity, a plaintiff must allege that the official acted as a result of a policy, practice, or custom. See Cortez v. County of Los Angeles, 294 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2001). In addition, there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, so a defendant's position as the supervisor of someone who allegedly violated a plaintiff's constitutional rights does not make him liable. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A supervisor in his individual capacity, "is only liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them." Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045.

Also, as the Court previously informed Plaintiff, claims of discriminatory law enforcement are judged according to equal protection standards. Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608 (1985); accord Dunn v. Hyra, 676 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1193 (W.D. Wash. 2009); see Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio, 598 F.Supp.2d 1025, 1037 (D. Ariz. 2009). "To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class." Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001).

Plaintiff alleges that he is Hispanic and that Vasquez "attempted to stop" him even though a description for the suspect was described as white. As noted in the Court's previous Order, Plaintiff fails to allege basic facts such as when Vasquez "attempted to stop" him. He also fails to allege whether Vasquez actually arrested him, and if so, the offense charged or the resolution of the charges. Plaintiff has failed to allege that Vasquez was acting as a result of a policy, practice, or custom. Finally, Plaintiff has failed to set forth evidence of unlawful intent or purpose to discriminate against him based upon his membership in a protected class. In short, Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege facts to support that Vasquez violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim against Defendant and his Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

IV. Leave to Amend

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may 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.

Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the "SecondAmended 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 First Amended Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count.

A second amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint and First Amended Complaint. 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 the original Complaint and First Amended Complaint as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the original Complaint or First Amended complaint is waived if it is not raised in a second amended complaint. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

V. Warnings
A. Release

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

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT