Verduzco v. US Attorney, District of Arizona ( 2023 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Susana E Verduzco, No. CV-23-01060-PHX-DLR 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 US Attorney, District of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Plaintiff Susana Verduzco, who is representing herself, has filed an application to 17 proceed without prepaying fees and costs. (Doc. 2.) The Court finds Plaintiff lacks the 18 means to pay the fees and costs associated with this action and grants her application. 19 Having done so, the Court must screen her complaint to ensure it states a claim to relief. 20 District courts “shall dismiss” a case proceeding on a fee waiver if “at any time the 21 court determines” that it “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(e)(2); accord Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). To state a claim 23 on which relief may be granted, a complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient to 24 “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 25 544, 555 (2007). The Court’s task is “to evaluate whether the claims alleged [plausibly] 26 can be asserted as a matter of law.” Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004); 27 accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). When analyzing the sufficiency of a 28 complaint, the well-pled factual allegations are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). || However, legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not entitled to the || assumption of truth, /gbal, 556 U.S. at 680, and are not, therefore, factual matter grounding aclaim, In re Cutera Sec. Litig., 610 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2008). 5 Plaintiff brings a suit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau □□ of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which under some circumstances authorizes a private right of action for damages against federal officers alleged to have violated a citizen’s 8 || constitutional rights. Two defendants—the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona and the United States Department of Justice—must be dismissed because they || are federal agencies, rather than federal officers, and cannot be held liable under Bivens. See F.D.LC. v. Mayer, 510 U.S. 471, 484-86 (1994). The third defendant, United States 12 || District Judge Dominic Lanza, is immune from any actions taken in his official capacity, 13 || and the complaint contains no allegations that Judge Lanza acted outside his official 14]| capacity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978). Plaintiff therefore has failed to 15 || state a claim to relief. Because no further factual allegations will change the fact that federal 16 || agencies are not federal officers, or that judges cannot be sued for their actions as judges, 17 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs application to proceed without prepaying fees and 18 || costs (Doc. 2) is GRANTED but her complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. The Clerk is 19 || directed to terminate this case. 20 Dated this 14th day of June, 2023. 21 22 23 {Z, 24 _- {UO 25 Upited States Dictric Judge 26 27 28 _2-