Greer v. Pima County Attorney's Office
Filing
9
ORDER: Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 8 ) and this action are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 6/4/2024. (MCO)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Eric Greer,
No. CV-23-00528-TUC-RM
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
12
State of Arizona,
13
ORDER
Defendant.
14
15
Plaintiff Eric Greer initiated this action on November 20, 2023, by filing a
16
Complaint (Doc. 1) and an Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2).
17
The Court granted Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and, on
18
screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend for
19
failure to state a claim. (Doc. 5.) On April 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
20
Complaint. (Doc. 6.) The Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to
21
amend for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 7.) On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Second
22
Amended Complaint. (Doc. 8.)
23
I.
Statutory Screening
24
The Prison Litigation Reform Act states that a district court “shall dismiss” an in
25
forma pauperis complaint if, at any time, the court determines that the action “is frivolous
26
or malicious” or that it “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C.
27
§ 1915(e)(2). “[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just
28
those filed by prisoners.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc);
1
see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
2
A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
3
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8
4
does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-
5
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
6
(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
7
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
8
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
9
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
10
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual
11
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
12
for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
13
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
14
520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action, Ivey
15
v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal interpretation of a
16
civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not
17
initially pled. Ivey, 673 F.2d at 268. If the Court determines that a pleading could be
18
cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to
19
amend a complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
20
1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
21
II.
22
In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the State of Arizona. (Doc. 8.)
23
Plaintiff does not specify the factual basis of his claim or the relief requested, but it
24
appears he challenges an Arizona law that requires him to register as a sex offender due
25
to a Pennsylvania conviction. (See id. at 3, 5-6.)
Second Amended Complaint
26
III.
27
Because Plaintiff has not identified the factual basis of his claim, he has failed to
28
Failure to State a Claim
state a claim.
Furthermore, as previously explained (see Doc. 7), the Eleventh
-2-
1
Amendment bars Plaintiff from seeking damages or injunctive relief against the State of
2
Arizona. See Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)
3
(“[t]he Eleventh Amendment bars suits which seek either damages or injunctive relief
4
against a state”). In addition, to the extent Plaintiff is attempting to state a claim under 42
5
U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleged violation of his constitutional rights arising from his
6
Pennsylvania conviction or any Arizona convictions for failure to register as a sex
7
offender, a § 1983 plaintiff cannot “recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
8
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness
9
would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” unless the plaintiff proves “that the
10
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
11
declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into
12
question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck v. Humphrey,
13
512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
14
For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for
15
failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has made three attempts at crafting a viable complaint
16
and has been unable to do so.
17
opportunities to amend and will dismiss this case with prejudice.
18
IT IS ORDERED that the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) and this action
19
are dismissed with prejudice.
20
accordingly and close this case.
21
Accordingly, the Court declines to grant further
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment
Dated this 4th day of June, 2024.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?