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)

Download PDF
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?