Walker v. Phoenix, City of et al
Filing
51
ORDER granting 45 Defendant City of Phoenix's Motion to Dismiss with prejudice and denying 48 Plaintiff's Motion to Seal. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff take nothing. The Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 8/20/12.(LSP)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
7
8
No. CV 11-01538-PHX-NVW
Janice Walker,
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
ORDER
vs.
City of Phoenix, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
Before the Court is Defendant1 City of Phoenix’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 45).
14
Defendant asserts Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with the federal pleading
15
standards and fails to state a plausible claim for relief. To state a claim for relief under
16
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a plaintiff must make “‘a short and plain statement of the claim
17
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of
18
what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
19
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). This “short and plain statement” must also
20
be “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). A claim is
21
plausible if it contains “[f]actual allegations [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the
22
speculative level,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, and to permit a reasonable inference that
23
the defendant is liable for the conduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Threadbare
24
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
25
not suffice.” Id. Rather, the plaintiff must at least “allege sufficient facts to state the
26
elements of [the relevant] claim.” Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d
27
1
28
The City of Phoenix is the only remaining defendant. (See Doc. 40.)
1
2
1116, 1122 (9th Cir. 2008). Even where a complaint has the factual elements of a cause
3
of action present but scattered throughout the complaint and not organized into a “short
4
and plain statement of the claim,” it may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a).
5
Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988).
6
Plaintiff has failed to satisfy these pleading requirements. In her third amended
7
complaint, Plaintiff continues to set forth her allegations in a rambling and incoherent
8
manner that does not reasonably put Defendant on notice of the claims against it.
9
Plaintiff has not listed separate claims for relief or clearly identified the legal theories or
10
causes of action entitling her to relief. Defendant’s motion to dismiss will therefore be
11
granted.
12
Although leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed.
13
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), “[l]eave need not be granted where the amendment of the complaint
14
would cause the opposing party undue prejudice ... or creates undue delay.” Ascon
15
Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989).
16
discretion to deny leave to amend a complaint is “especially broad” where the plaintiff
17
already has had one or more opportunities to amend his complaint. Id. at 1161. “Leave to
18
amend need not be given if a complaint, as amended, is subject to dismissal.” Moore v.
19
Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). “Futility of amendment
20
can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend.” Bonin v. Calderon, 59
21
F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff has already been given three opportunities to
22
amend her complaint, and there is no basis for concluding that further amendment will
23
correct the continuing deficiencies in her pleadings.
24
Amended Complaint (Doc. 38) will be dismissed with prejudice.
The Court’s
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Third
25
Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal File (Doc. 48) does not show sufficient cause to warrant
26
this matter being sealed and will be denied. Although she asks the court to seal “all
27
28
-2
1
2
private medical records and doctor letters of plaintiff” (id. at 1), no such records or letters
3
are in the record.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant City of Phoenix’s Motion to
4
5
Dismiss (Doc. 45) is granted with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal File (Doc. 48) is
6
7
denied.
8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment in favor of Defendant
9
and against Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff take nothing. The Clerk shall terminate this
10
11
action.
Dated this 20th day of August, 2012.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?