Meabon v. Arizona, State of et al

Filing 8

ORDER, denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Plaintiff shall have until 9/9/11 to file an Amended Complaint; the Clerk shall terminate this action without further notice if Plaintiff fails to comply with this deadline. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/10/11.(REW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Lawanda Denise Meabon,

No. CV11-0940-PHX-DGC

Plaintiff,

10

ORDER

11

vs.

12

State of Arizona, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 3. For the reasons that follow,
the Court will deny the motion.

17

Federal civil proceedings in forma pauperis are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

18

Although the statute on its face applies to actions involving prisoners, this circuit has

19

applied it to civil cases involving non-prisoners. E.g., Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank &

20

Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369-70 (9th Cir. 1987). An applicant for in forma pauperis status

21

must credibly show that she in unable to pay court costs and that her action has merit. Id.

22

A complaint that fails to state a claim lacks merit. Id. at 1370; see Lopez v. Smith, 203

23

F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“It is . . . clear that section 1915(e) not only

24

permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to

25

state a claim.”). Pro se complaints must be construed liberally, and dismissals for failure

26

to state a claim cannot be with prejudice unless it is absolutely clear amendment would

27

be futile. Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370. The complaint in this case, construed liberally, fails

28

1

to plead enough facts from which the Court may conclude Plaintiff has a plausible claim

2

for relief.

3

As a threshold matter, the complaint is peppered in large part with formalistic

4

language that appears to have little or no bearing on this case. The statutes under which

5

the complaint appears to be brought, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, are criminal statutes.

6

This is a civil complaint, however, and Plaintiff has not shown the cited statutes provide a

7

civil remedy in light of the facts alleged. Plaintiff also invokes this Court’s admiralty

8

jurisdiction, but fails to plead facts showing this jurisdiction is applicable. Plaintiff’s

9

statements about debts and secured party creditor rights are confusing, as no facts have

10

been pled alleging that any party has a debt. Moreover, Plaintiff’s statements about IRS

11

1099-A forms are equally confusing, as no facts have been pled showing the relevance of

12

these forms. The allegations that Plaintiff is a “foreign agent” acting for a “foreign state”

13

appear to be frivolous.

14

The only colorable allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint appear to be that she was

15

charged with driving on a suspended driver’s license, that she was acquitted, that these

16

charges stemmed from racial profiling, and that there was a conspiracy to violate her

17

constitutional rights. Doc. 1 at 3-4. Plaintiff may be trying to state a claim under 42

18

U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, but she has not pled sufficient facts to state plausibly that the

19

charges were racially-motivated or that there was an agreement to interfere with her civil

20

rights. Assuming Plaintiff’s factual allegations are true – that she is part of a protected

21

class, was charged with a traffic violation, and was acquitted of the charge – the Court

22

has no factual basis from which to conclude that the arresting officers, the prosecutors, or

23

other defendants acted as they did because of Plaintiff’s race, that race was a factor

24

motivating the actions, or that there existed a conspiracy to interfere with Plaintiff’s civil

25

rights. Nor does Plaintiff show how the alleged acts themselves – stopping a motorist

26

suspected of driving with a suspended license – violated the constitution or federal law

27

absent considerations of race.

28

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice because the
‐ 2 ‐ 

1

complaint fails to state a claim. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that contains

2

clear facts stating what happened, why she believes that she was racially profiled or

3

discriminated against, and what constitutional or statutory rights she believes were

4

violated. To enhance the clarity of her allegations, Plaintiff should avoid using old-

5

fashioned or formalistic language – short, plain statements of fact should be sufficient.

6

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff may include references to the constitution, statutes, and

7

other sources for rights she believes were violated.

8

September 9, 2011, to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff may also file a renewed

9

motion to proceed in forma pauperis after filing the amended complaint.

10

IT IS ORDERED:

11

1.

Plaintiff may have until

12
13

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied without

prejudice.
2.

Plaintiff shall have until September 9, 2011 to file an amended complaint.

14

The Clerk shall terminate this action without further notice if Plaintiff fails to comply

15

with this deadline.

16

Dated this 10th day of August, 2011.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
‐ 3 ‐