Opinion
No. CV 09-0020-PHX-DGC (MHB).
March 24, 2009
ORDER
Plaintiff Clifford Pickette, who is confined in the Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix, Arizona, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc.# 1, 4.) The Court will order Defendant Mow to answer Count I of the Complaint and will dismiss the remaining claims and Defendants.
"Doc.#" refers to the docket number of filings in this case.
I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee
II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints
In Forma Pauperis28 U.S.C. § 191528 U.S.C. § 191528 U.S.C. § 191528 U.S.C. § 1915 28 U.S.C. § 1915A28 U.S.C. § 1915Apro se See Lopez v. Smith 203 F.3d 11221127-29 en banc Pliler v. Ford542 U.S. 225231see also Lopez203 F.3d at 1131
III. Complaint
Plaintiff alleges three counts in his Complaint. He sues Phoenix Police Officer Richard Mow, Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Janet K. McNaughton, and Deputy Maricopa County Public Defender Jennifer Roach.
Plaintiff alleges the following facts: On November 8, 2008, Phoenix Police Officer Mow approached Plaintiff and asked him for his identification. Mow then told Plaintiff that he was going to perform a "Terry frisk." Plaintiff alleges that rather than searching for weapons, Mow removed a cigarette pack and a beer. Plaintiff asserts that due to Mow's allegedly illegal search, he was arrested, humiliated, beaten up while he was jailed, and lost his job. According to state court documents available online, the Maricopa County Superior Court granted the State's motion to dismiss charges against Plaintiff in CR2008-169933, without prejudice, on February 25, 2009. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive relief.
Although not stated in Count I, Plaintiff makes clear that Mow was the officer involved in Count II.
Plaintiff appears to refer to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1968), and its progeny.
See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/032009/m3604416.pdf.
IV. Failure 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 affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).
A. Deputy County Attorney McNaughton
Plaintiff sues Deputy County Attorney McNaughton for "accepting" the complaint filed by Officer Mow. McNaughton is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. Prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for their conduct in "initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case" insofar as that conduct is "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 270 (1993) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)); Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486 (1991) (quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430-431); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 1986). Immunity extends to a prosecutor "eliciting false or defamatory testimony from witnesses" or for making false or defamatory statements during, and related to judicial proceedings. Buckley, 509 U.S. 259, 270 (1993) (citations omitted). Because Plaintiff's allegations solely concern conduct in connection with a prosecution, McNaughton is entitled to immunity.
B. Deputy County Public Defender Roach
Plaintiff also sues Deputy Maricopa County Public Defender Jennifer Roach for conduct in representing Plaintiff in state criminal proceedings. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must not only allege a violation of his constitutional rights, but he must allege that a "defendant's actions were taken under color of state law."Gritchen v. Collier, 254 F.3d 807, 812 (9th Cir. 2001) (citingFlagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-56 (1978)). "Acting under color of state law is 'a jurisdictional requisite for a § 1983 action.'" Id. (quoting West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 46 (1988)). "[A] person acts under color of state law only when exercising power 'possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.'" Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-18 (1981) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)). Whether an attorney representing a criminal defendant is privately retained, a public defender or court-appointed counsel, she does not act under color of state law. See Polk County, 454 U.S. at 317-18; Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003) ( en banc). For that reason, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Roach in his Complaint.
V. Claim for Which an Answer Will be Required
Plaintiff alleges that Mow searched him in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights by searching a pack of Plaintiff's cigarettes and beer as part of Terry frisk for weapons resulting in Plaintiff's arrest. Defendant Mow will be required to respond to Count I of the Complaint.
VI. Warnings
A. Release
Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of his release. Also, within 30 days of his release, he must either (1) notify the Court that he intends to pay the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why he 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 he 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 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted. (Doc.# 4.)
(2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency, Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is not assessed an initial partial filing fee.
(3) Counts II and III and Defendants McNaughton and Roach are dismissed without prejudice.
(4) Defendant Mow must answer Count I.
(5) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the Complaint (doc.# 1), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for Defendant Mow.
(6) 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.
(7) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or complete service of the Summons and Complaint on a 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 each Defendant not served. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m); LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i).
(8) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the Complaint, and a copy of this Order for future use.
(9) The United States Marshal must notify Defendant 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 a 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) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 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) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
(10) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and Complaint must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not the Plaintiff.
(11) 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.
(12) Any answer or response must state the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, response, or other motion or paper that does not identify the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed.
(13) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).