Bass v. Arizona Motor Vehicle Division
2:24-cv-02380
| D. Ariz. | Jan 29, 2025Background
- Johann Alexander Bass, an incarcerated, self-represented plaintiff, filed a § 1983 civil rights complaint against the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division (AMVD) and four unnamed employees, along with motions for discovery and to proceed in forma pauperis.
- Bass challenged Arizona's disqualification of his Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) after a South Dakota conviction, alleging due process violations in the reporting and administrative process by Arizona officials.
- Plaintiff claimed he did not receive notice or a hearing regarding the disqualification, despite Arizona law requiring such procedures, and that AMVD failed to compare South Dakota facts to Arizona statutes.
- The court granted the fee waiver application, required an initial partial payment, and screened the complaint under mandatory federal procedures for pro se prisoner lawsuits.
- The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, finding the AMVD not a proper party and the allegations against John Doe defendants to be conclusory. Plaintiff was granted 30 days to amend.
- The court denied without prejudice Bass’s motion for limited discovery and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims as the federal claims were dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| AMVD as defendant under § 1983 | AMVD violated due process and entered wrongful action | AMVD is a state agency, immune under Eleventh Amend. | AMVD not a proper §1983 defendant; dismissed. |
| Sufficiency of John Doe allegations | AMVD employees violated due process without due procedure | Claims against Does are conclusory and unspecified | Too vague/conclusory; dismissed without prejudice. |
| Due process (notice, hearing) | Bass was denied notice and hearing as required by law | N/A (complaint screened pre-answer) | No sufficient facts to plausibly allege violation. |
| Supplemental jurisdiction | State-law breach of duty by AMVD employees | N/A | Declined; no federal claim survives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaints must state plausible factual claims, not mere conclusions)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (requires plausible factual allegations for relief)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se filings are to be liberally construed)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (states/entities have sovereign immunity from federal suits)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (pro se plaintiffs must be given leave to amend when possible)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pleadings by prisoners held to less stringent standards)
- Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (liability requires personal participation in deprivation)