Goff v. ALK Asphalt LLC et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Ryan Christopher Goff,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Phoenix, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-04537-PHX-JAT
ORDER
To initiate this case, Plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Docs. 1-2). Plaintiff thereafter filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 6). On
January 15, 2026, this Court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). (Doc. 10). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Id.) The Court also found the amended complaint failed to state a claim and dismissed the
amended complaint with leave to amend. (Id.). The Court further stated that if a second
amended complaint was filed, it could not be served until it was screened by this Court.
(Id.).
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (Doc. 11). That filing was late under
the Court’s order allowing amendment. While the Court will, on this one occasion, accept
this late filing, Plaintiff is cautioned that going forward he must comply with all deadlines
or risk waiver, forfeiture or dismissal.
I. Screening – 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
As discussed in the January 15, 2026 Order:
Case 2:25-cv-04537-JAT Document 12 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a
claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that
screening pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates the familiar standard applied in
the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6)”).
Hairston v. Juarez, No. 22-CV-01801-BAS-WVG, 2023 WL 2468967, at *2 (S.D. Cal.
Mar. 10, 2023).
II. Discussion
In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff sues two Defendants: the City of
Phoenix and Kini L.E. Knudson in her official capacity as Director of the Street
Transportation Department of the City of Phoenix. In short summary, Plaintiff alleges that
he has a disability and that the public pedestrian path and sidewalk in front of his home do
not accommodate his disability because of a repeated flooding issue. Plaintiff brings two
causes of action: an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and an alleged
Monell claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to other relief, Plaintiff seeks a
preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants to change the engineering of
this public area to prevent flooding.
On this record, the Court finds that the second amended complaint against the two
named Defendants states a claim sufficiently to survive screening. Thus, the Court will
permit Plaintiff to serve the second amended complaint on the City of Phoenix and Kini
L.E. Knudson. These two Defendants will be required to respond to the second amended
complaint. The Court’s finding that the second amended complaint survives screening is
without prejudice to Defendants filing a motion to dismiss if they deem such a motion to
be appropriate. See Coleman v. Maldnado, 564 F. App’x 893, 894 (9th Cir. 2014) (a district
court may properly grant a motion to dismiss despite a prior screening order finding the
complaint stated a claim); Jones v. Sullivan, 19-CV-0025BKSCFH, 2020 WL 5792989, at
*5 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2020) (“A court’s initial screening under § 1915(e) and/or § 1915A
does not preclude a later dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).”).
Case 2:25-cv-04537-JAT Document 12 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
III. Conclusion
Based on the Court’s screening of the second amended complaint,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff must serve the summons, complaint and a copy of
this Order on each of the City of Phoenix and Kini L.E. Knudson within 60 days of the date
of this Order. Plaintiff may either serve the second amended complaint through his own
means, or file a motion asking for service by the U.S. Marshals. Any motion for Marshal
service must be filed within 14 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will take no action on Plaintiff’s
request for preliminary injunctive relief found in the second amended complaint. To obtain
preliminary injunctive relief Plaintiff must file a motion that complies with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 65.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants (the City of Phoenix and Kini L.E.
Knudson) must answer or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint within the
time limits set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated this 27th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-04537-JAT Document 12 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 3