D'Ambrosio v. Maricopa County et al

Filing 6

ORDER that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 5 ) may state a claim as to Defendants Tara Spalding and Maricopa County. Such a claim or claims may proceed. All other claims set forth in the Amended Complaint are dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDE RED that Plaintiff may serve the Summons and Amended Complaint upon the two remaining defendants pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff is further directed to familiarize herself with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules for the District of Arizona which can be found on the Court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/13/2012. (KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

No. CV-12-1182-PHX-GMS

Mary D'Ambrosio,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

John Rea, Judge; Unknown Zwillinger;
County of Maricopa; Unknown Greek,

13

Defendants.

14
15

On June 6, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend.

16

Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s Amended

17

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) before it is allowed to be served. Pursuant

18

to that screening Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to

19

amend.

20

I.

Amended Complaint

21

An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

22

F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d

23

1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court treats the original Complaint as

24

nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Thus, the Court will consider only those claims

25

raised in the Amended Complaint against only those Defendants named in the Amended

26

Complaint.

27

Except with respect to Tara Spalding and Maricopa County, Plaintiff’s Amended

28

Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. With the exception of

1

such claims against Tara Reid and Maricopa County the Amended Complaint is therefore

2

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

3

II.

4

Dismissal of All Claims Except Those Stated Against Tara Spalding and
Maricopa County

5

In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states that “pursuant to official policy, usage

6

and practice, “guards caused injury” to her causing damage to various body parts and

7

causing her to be placed in isolation. She alleges that as a disabled vulnerable adult she

8

was discriminated against and that as a seriously mentally ill person she was abused. She

9

claims the guards were deliberately indifferent to her health and rights in light of her age

10

and medical record.

Plaintiff appears to complain about acts committed by Tara

11

Spalding, apparently a corrections officer in the Maricopa County Jail system. She

12

further seeks relief from “these [unidentified] entities” because no large print law books

13

are available to aid me in “these five years of litigation,” making “these defendants”

14

liable for non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. She also complains

15

of how her previous litigation, apparently involving these same matters, was handled and

16

dismissed within the state court system.

17

Reading the Plaintiff’s complaint liberally, as is required, it appears that she

18

attempts to state a § 1983 claim against Corrections Officer Tara Reid and Maricopa

19

County. Nevertheless, to the extent that her complaint seeks to assert claims against the

20

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge who previously heard this matter, Judge John

21

Rea, or other judges in the Arizona appellate court system, it fails to overcome the

22

deficiencies previously identified in this Court’s first order of dismissal. Further, the

23

complaint fails to identify whom Plaintiff seeks to sue for violating the Americans with

24

Disabilities Act and further fails to plead sufficient facts necessary to make any other

25

claim plausible.

26

This Court previously noted Plaintiff’s failure to clearly set forth claims against

27

identifiable defendants and allowed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint so that she

28

could correct this error. With the possible exception of Defendant Tara Spalding and
-2-

1

Maricopa County for a § 1983 claim for excessive force and/or cruel and unusual

2

punishment claim Plaintiff has failed to do so. Although this claim may have already

3

been resolved due to the state court proceedings, the Court will allow the Plaintiff to

4

pursue only a claim for Tara Spalding and Maricopa County based on excessive force

5

and/or cruel and unusual punishment. Any other claim which Plaintiff seeks to assert in

6

her amended complaint is dismissed.

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 5) may

8

state a claim as to Defendants Tara Spalding and Maricopa County. Such a claim or

9

claims may proceed. All other claims set forth in the Amended Complaint are dismissed.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may serve the Summons and

11

Amended Complaint upon the two remaining defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of

12

Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff is further directed to familiarize herself with the Federal

13

Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules for the District of Arizona which can be found

14

on the Court’s website at www.azd.uscourts.gov.

15

Dated this 13th day of August, 2012.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-