McDonald v. Phoenix, City of, 2:23-cv-01275

Background

Pro se plaintiff Kenneth McDonald sued the City of Phoenix and multiple Phoenix police officers under § 1983 and Arizona law for a August 2, 2022 arrest during which he alleges officers used excessive force, obtained fingerprints after force, fabricated charges, and caused job loss; charges were later dismissed.
Complaint asserted 15 counts (federal and state), naming the City, interim Chief Michael Sullivan (individual and official capacities), and numerous officers/sergeants/commanders in their individual capacities.
City moved to dismiss for (inter alia) improper service, failure to comply with Arizona notice-of-claim statute (A.R.S. § 12-821.01), state-law immunity under A.R.S. § 12-820.05(B), immunity from punitive damages, and failure to state a claim; motion was fully briefed.
Court granted in forma pauperis status, allowed City’s over‑length brief, and reviewed the motion under the screening standards for IFP and pro se pleadings (Iqbal/Twombly standards but liberally construed for pro se filings).
Court dismissed several claims and defendants without prejudice (including criminal‑statute counts, Monell claim, various state claims against the City, and Sullivan in official capacity for duplicative claims), but found plausible claims that must be answered: state-law false arrest (Count Three) against several officers; Fourth Amendment excessive force (Count Six) against listed officers; Fourth Amendment false arrest (Count Seven) and First Amendment retaliation (Count Eight) against Sleeper; failure-to-intervene (Count Nine) against several officers; and certain state claims (aiding and abetting, IIED, gross negligence) against the City only to the extent they are based on alleged conduct by Officer Turiano.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
IFP / Filing fee	McDonald lacks funds to pay fees	N/A	IFP granted; fees waived.
Improper service of summons	Served complaint without summons because clerk withheld summons	City moves to dismiss for lack of summons	Denied; clerk need not issue summons before court orders service; Plaintiff must properly serve those required to answer.
Arizona notice of claim (A.R.S. § 12-821.01) for state-law claims against individual officers	McDonald filed notices with Phoenix City Clerk within 180 days and thus complied	City says no record of individual service; serving City Clerk does not prove service on individual employees	Motion denied without prejudice as to this ground; Court notes serious risk Plaintiff failed to strictly comply but City did not show standing to seek dismissal here and §1915 screening covers pleading sufficiency.
A.R.S. § 12-820.05(B) public-entity immunity for acts found to be felony	McDonald alleges Turiano had prior sustained excessive-force finding and Brady listing, showing City's knowledge of propensity	City argues no allegation that it knew of propensity generally nor actual knowledge of other officers; absent such knowledge City is immune	Court: City not immune only to claims tied to Turiano's alleged aggravated-force conduct (Turiano’s prior sustained finding plausibly supplies “actual knowledge”); City immune for other state-law claims.
Punitive damages against City	Seeks punitive damages	City invokes sovereign immunity and § 12-820.04	Dismissed: City immune from punitive damages on state and federal claims.
Claims premised on state criminal statutes (Counts 1,2,4)	Brought pursuant to Arizona criminal statutes for relief	City: those are criminal statutes and do not create civil causes of action	Dismissed without prejudice: criminal statutes do not authorize civil relief.
Monell municipal liability against City (ratification/failure to train)	City ratified officer conduct and failed to train/supervise	City argues allegations are conclusory and lack facts showing deliberate indifference or final policymaker ratification	Dismissed without prejudice: plaintiff’s Monell allegations are conclusory and fail to plausibly plead custom, deliberate indifference, or ratification.
Supervisor Sullivan (individual and official capacity)	Named in both capacities; plaintiff alleges supervisory failures	City argues no personal involvement or factual allegations against Sullivan	Sullivan dismissed in official capacity as duplicative of City; Sullivan dismissed in individual capacity from Counts 6–9 for lack of personal involvement.
Malicious prosecution / libel/slander (Count Three)	Alleges fabrication and recommendation to file charges	City argues prosecution was controlled by county prosecutors and no publication alleged	Malicious prosecution dismissed (defendants were not prosecutors and prosecution controlled by county); libel/slander dismissed for lack of allegation of publication.

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim, not mere conclusions)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir.) (pro se complaints construed liberally)
Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy/custom causing constitutional injury)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (§ 1983 requires action under color of state law)
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (failure-to-train requires pattern or deliberate indifference)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (failure-to-train standard; deliberate indifference)
Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (municipal liability and causation/culpability standards)
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (official-capacity suits are suits against the entity)
Doe v. Dickenson, 615 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (actual knowledge standard for entity liability under Arizona law)
Ryan v. Napier, 425 P.3d 230 (Ariz.) (felony-exclusion immunity under Arizona law need not await criminal conviction)
State v. Heinze, 993 P.2d 1090 (Ariz. App.) (courts may determine felony for indemnification/immunity exclusions)