Williams v. Arizona, State of

1 KM 2 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Timothy Huntley Williams, No. CV-23-00843-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 State of Arizona Legislature, 13 Defendant. [14] 15 Plaintiff Timothy Huntley Williams, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, has 16 filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss this action. 18 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 19 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915 (a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $8.67. The remainder of 22 the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 23 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. [24] 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 25 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 26 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 27 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 28 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 1 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 2 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 3 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 4 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 5 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 6 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 7 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the8 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 , 678 9 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 10 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 11 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 12 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, [13] 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 14 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 15 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 16 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 17 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679 . Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 18 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 19 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681 . 20 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 21 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 , 342 22 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 23 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 24 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 25 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 26 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 27 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). [28] 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend 2 because the defects cannot be corrected. 3 III. Complaint 4 Plaintiff names the State of Arizona Legislature as Defendant in his one-count 5 Complaint and seeks $108.5 trillion in damages. Plaintiff claims “the State of Arizona 6 Constitution, along with several laws made by the legislature, violates the entire United 7 States Constitution, which is reflected by behavior of the courts and its officers.” Plaintiff 8 asserts “nothing is respected,” and every time he is suspected of committing a crime, he is 9 “being made to pay with [his] life [through] time.” 10 IV. Failure to State a Claim 11 Under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a state or 12 state agency may not be sued in federal court without its consent. Pennhurst State Sch. & 13 Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th 14 Cir. 1989). Furthermore, “a state is not a ‘person’ for purposes of section 1983.” Gilbreath 15 v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). 16 Similarly, a state legislature is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983 liability and 17 individual state legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from suit under § 1983 for 18 legislative acts. See Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 , (1998) (“state and regional 19 legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from liability under § 1983 for their legislative 20 activities.”); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807 (1982); Kaahumanu v. County of 21 Maui, 315 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2003); Kuzinich v. County of Santa Clara, 689 F.2d 22 1345, 1349 (9th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the State of Arizona Legislature is not a proper 23 Defendant, the Court will dismiss the Complaint and this action. 24 IT IS ORDERED: 25 (1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted. 26 (2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government 27 agency, Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee 28 of $8.67. 1 (3) | The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 2| 28U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 3 (4) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the 4 dismissal for failure to state a claim may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g). 5 (5) | The docket shall reflect that the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), has considered whether an appeal of this decision would be taken in good faith and certifies that an appeal would not be taken 8 | in good faith for the reasons stated in the Order and because there is no arguable factual or legal basis for an appeal. 10 Dated this 16th day of June, 2023. [11] 12 a 3 [13] 14 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge