Minix et al v. Jennings et al

Filing 7

ORDER dismissing Plas' 1 Complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a); denying as moot Plas' 4 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; denying Plas' 6 Motion for Return of Property as m oot; that Plas may file an Amended Complaint and another Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis no later than 30 days from the date of this order. If no Amended Complaint is filed, this case will be dismissed without further notice. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 07/29/10. (ESL)

Minix et al v. Jennings et al

Doc. 7

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

) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) William Jennings, Joe Arredondo,) ) Cameron Payne, Anthony Moreno . ) ) Defendants. ) Frederick Minix, Denise Minix,

No. CV 10-1451-PHX-MHM ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. # 4). The Court has screened Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and will dismiss it for failure to state a claim. "[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that: A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counter-claim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded.

Dockets.Justia.com

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

Here, Plaintiffs' Complaint plainly fails to state a claim for relief. The Complaint contains several obvious legal flaws that render the Court unable to currently grant Plaintiffs' request to proceed IFP. By way of example, Plaintiffs have sued Defendant William Jennings under A.R.S. § 12-511, A.R.S. § 13-420, A.R.S. § 13-2311, A.R.S. § 13-1802A5, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, A.R.S. § 13-1802, and A.R.S. § 13-2002. The Court notes that private civil plaintiffs may not bring suit in federal court against civil defendants for violations of federal or state criminal statutes. As such, Plaintiffs' claims against Jennings brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, A.R.S. § 13-2311, A.R.S. § 13-1802A5, and A.R.S. § 13-2002 must all fail as a matter of law. In addition, the Court appears to lack jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs' claim under A.R.S. § 12-511. Plaintiffs should be aware that Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1332, prevent federal courts from adjudicating lawsuits where the Court lacks "diversity jurisdiction." It is not altogether clear how this Court would have diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining civil claims, when the Complaint does not attempt to set forth the citizenship of the Parties. As such, the Court will give Plaintiffs one opportunity to amend their Complaint. Plaintiff must: make clear his allegations in short, plain statements with each claim for relief identified in separate sections. In the amended complaint, [Plaintiff] must write out the rights he believes were violated, the name of the person who violated the right, exactly what that individual did or failed to do, how the action or inaction of that person is connected to the violation of [Plaintiff's] rights, and what specific injury [Plaintiff] suffered because of the other person's conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). Each claim of an alleged violation must be set forth in a separate count. Any amended complaint filed by [Plaintiff] must conform to the requirements of Rules 8(a) and (e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358205, *3 (D. Ariz. 2005). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). (Doc. #1) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. # 4). -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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Return of Property as moot (Doc. 6). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs may file an Amended Complaint and another Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis no later than 30 days from the date of this order. If no Amended Complaint is filed, this case will be dismissed without further notice. DATED this 29th day of July, 2010.

-3-