Bennetti #85442 v. Gottfield et al

Filing 9

ORDER - The #8 First Amended Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 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 finds Plaintiff may appeal in forma pauperis. See document for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 10/4/19. (MSA)

1
2

MDR

WO

3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Dino Bennetti,

10
11
12

No. CV 19-05068-PHX-DGC (JFM)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

Robert L. Gottfield, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

On August 30, 2019, Plaintiff Dino Bennetti, who is confined in the Arizona State

16

Prison Complex-Lewis in Buckeye, Arizona, filed a pro se Complaint and an Application

17

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a September 9, 2019 Order, the Court granted the

18

Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had not filed his

19

Complaint on a court-approved form, as required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4.

20

The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint on a court-approved

21

form. On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8). The

22

Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint and this action.

23

I.

Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

24

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

25

against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28

26

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff

27

has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which

28

1

relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

2

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2).

3

A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

4

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does

5

not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-

6

defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”

7

(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

8

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

9

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

10

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

11

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content

12

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

13

misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for

14

relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial

15

experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual

16

allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there

17

are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681.

18

But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts

19

must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342

20

(9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent

21

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551

22

U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)).

23

If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other

24

facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal

25

of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

26

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, without

27

leave to amend because the defects cannot be corrected.

28

....

-2-

1

II.

First Amended Complaint

2

In his one-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Maricopa County

3

Superior Court Judge Robert Gottfield and former Maricopa County Clerk Michael K.

4

Jeans.1 Plaintiff alleges his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated based

5

on “negligence/libel/and defamation.” Plaintiff contends that on July 24, 2019, he received

6

a minute entry from the Clerk of Court stating that he had been found guilty of two counts

7

of first-degree murder Maricopa County Superior Court cases CR2002-006108-A and

8

CR2002-010429-B, “per [Defendants] Gottfield and . . . Jeans.” According to Plaintiff,

9

the minute entry stated that he had been sentenced to life without parole in both cases based

10

on a plea of (guilty).” Plaintiff asserts that “[i]f this were true, then it was publish[ed] and

11

became public knowledge on or about July 1, 2005.”

12

Plaintiff asserts that this is a “grave mistake” and “‘libel’/‘defamation.’” He claims

13

that “[d]ue to these false charges and sentences, and published notification to the public,”

14

he has “los[t] (3) parole hearings, chances to [be] parole[d] to [his] next term, or . . .

15

absolute discharge on [his] original case.” Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive

16

relief “ordering this error b[e] fixed[ and] taking it off the Plaintiff’s record.”

17

III.

Failure to State a Claim

18

A.

19

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for damages for their judicial acts

20

except when they are taken “in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Stump v. Sparkman,

21

435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 351 (1871));

22

Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). An act is “judicial” when it is a

23

function normally performed by a judge and the parties dealt with the judge in his or her

24

judicial capacity. Stump, 435 U.S. at 362; Crooks v. Maynard, 913 F.2d 699, 700 (9th Cir.

25

1990). This immunity attaches even if the judge is accused of acting maliciously and

26

corruptly, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967), or of making grave errors of law or

Request for Monetary Damages

27
28

Plaintiff has misspelled Defendants names. The proper spellings are “Gottsfield”
and “Jeanes.”
1

-3-

1

procedure. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988).

2

Likewise, “[c]ourt clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for

3

civil rights violations when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial

4

process.” Mullis v. United States Bankr. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987).

5

Immunity is not lost because the Clerk makes a mistake or fails to carry out his duties, even

6

when it results in “‘grave procedural errors.’”

7
8
9

Because both Defendants are immune from liability for damages, the Court will
dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s requests for damages.
B.

Request for Injunctive Relief

10

Plaintiff has not provided the Court with a copy of the minute entry he allegedly

11

received on July 24, 2019. The Court has reviewed the dockets in the two cases to which

12

Plaintiff refers, Maricopa County Superior Court case numbers CR2002-006108-A and

13

CR2002-010429-B. Defendant Gottfield did not issue any minute entries in either case. 2

14

However, the July 1, 2015 minute entries in both cases indicate that an entirely different

15

individual pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced in each case to natural

16

life without the possibility of parole.3

17

Of the Maricopa County Superior Court minute entries issued since 2002 in

18

Plaintiff’s two criminal cases, CR1990-0906024 and CR2011-005834, only two were

19

issued by Defendant Gottfield.5 The March 6, 2012 minute entry issued by Defendant

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/JONamesearch.asp?department=&
casenumber=cr2002006108&partydesignator=&lastname=&firstname=&middlename=&
joname=&entryfromdate=&entrytodate=&submit=Retrieve+Minute+Entries#search (last
accessed Sept. 30, 2019) and http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/JONamesearch.
asp?department=&casenumber=cr2002010429&partydesignator=&lastname=&firstname
=&middlename=&joname=&entryfromdate=&entrytodate=&submit=Retrieve+Minute+
Entries#search (last accessed Sept. 30, 2019).
3

See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/viewerME.asp?fn=Criminal/072005/
m1865746.pdf and http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/viewerME.asp?fn=Criminal/
072005/m1865748.pdf (last accessed Sept. 30, 2019).
According to the Superior Court’s records, Plaintiff is also known as Paul Charles
Denatale. See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/viewerME.asp?fn=Criminal/0920
19/m8866478.pdf (last accessed Sept. 30, 2019).
4

5

See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/JONamesearch.asp?department=&ca
-4-

1

Gottfield in CR1990-090602 denied Plaintiff’s Notice of Post-Conviction Relief and

2

contains a discussion regarding the convictions and sentences in CR2002-006108-A and

3

CR2002-010429-B.6 However, that minute entry was issued on March 6, 2012, and was

4

mailed to Plaintiff at the prison. Plaintiff does not indicate that he did not receive the

5

minute entry in 2012, and it is unclear to the Court how this claim is not barred by the

6

statute of limitations.7

7

Even if the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, Plaintiff is not entitled

8

to the injunctive relief he seeks. First, any mistake in the minute entry did not deny Plaintiff

9

due process because the error could have been corrected either by filing a motion with

10

Defendant Gottfield or seeking appellate review. See Biggs v. Ward, 212 F.2d 209, 210

11

(7th Cir. 1954) (per curium) (“Lack of due process is not established by showing that a

12

decision is erroneous, for such an error may be corrected in the courts of the state.”).

13

Second, if the Court were to grant the injunctive relief Plaintiff requests, the Court would,

14

in essence, be issuing a writ of mandamus in the underlying state court proceeding. The

15

Court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order. See Demos v. United States Dist. Ct. for E.

16

Dist. of Was., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991).

17

C.

18

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law

19

negligence, libel, and defamation claims because Plaintiff’s federal claims have been

20

senumber=cr1990090602&partydesignator=&lastname=&firstname=&middlename=&jo
name=&entryfromdate=&entrytodate=&submit=Retrieve+Minute+Entries (last accessed
Sept. 30, 2019) and http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/JONamesearch.asp?depart
ment=&casenumber=&partydesignator=&lastname=bennetti&firstname=dino&middlena
me=&joname=&entryfromdate=&entrytodate=&submit=Retrieve+Minute+Entries (last
accessed Sept. 30, 2019).

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

State Law Claims

6

See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/viewerME.asp?fn=Criminal/032012/
m5142417.pdf (last accessed Sept. 30, 2019).
7

The applicable statute of limitations in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the
forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S.
261, 276 (1985). The Arizona statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years.
See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542(1). Accrual of § 1983 claims is governed by federal law.
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007). Under federal law, a claim accrues when the
plaintiff “knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis of the action.” Pouncil
v. Tilton, 704 F.3d 568, 574 (9th Cir. 2012); Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d
374, 381 (9th Cir. 1998).
-5-

1

dismissed. See Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A court may decline to

2

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims once it has ‘dismissed all

3

claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3))); Gini v.

4

Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (when federal law

5

claims are eliminated before trial, the court generally should decline jurisdiction over state

6

law claims and dismiss them without prejudice).

7

IT IS ORDERED:

8

(1)

9
10

The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.
(2)

The docket shall reflect that the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)

11

and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), has considered whether an appeal

12

of this decision would be taken in good faith and finds Plaintiff may appeal in forma

13

pauperis.

14

Dated this 4th day of October, 2019.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-6-