Long v. Maricopa Community College District et al

Filing 7

ORDER that Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 3 ) is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint by March 9, 2012 . FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint by March 9, 2012, the Clerk shall dismiss this action without further order of this Court. FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the complaint may not be served until and unless the Court screens the amended complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 2/22/2012. (KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Crystal Long,

No. CV 12-00112-PHX-NVW
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

ORDER

Maricopa Community College District, et
al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

Before the Court is Plaintiff Crystal Long’s Application to Proceed in District

17

Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 3), otherwise known as a motion for leave

18

to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant Long’s in forma pauperis application

19

and screen her complaint. Screening her complaint reveals defects that require the Court

20

to dismiss it, but she will receive an opportunity to amend.

21

I.

22
23

LEGAL STANDARD
Permitting Long to proceed in forma pauperis obligates this Court to screen her

complaint under the following standards.

24

A.

Screening Standard

25

When this Court permits a party to file in forma pauperis, the Court “shall dismiss

26

the case at any time if the court determines” that the “allegation of poverty is untrue” or

27

that the “action or appeal” is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which

28

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

1

from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of § 1915 outlines how prisoners

2

can file proceedings in forma pauperis, § 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis

3

proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th

4

Cir. 2000) (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints”). “It is also

5

clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in

6

forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Id.

7

B.

Standard for Stating a Claim

8

To state a claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a plaintiff

9

must make “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

10

to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the

11

grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

12

(citations omitted). This “short and plain statement” must also be “plausible on its face.”

13

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A claim is plausible if it contains

14

sufficient factual matter to permit a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for

15

the conduct alleged. Id. A proper complaint needs no “formulaic recitation of the

16

elements of a cause of action,” see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, but the complaint must at

17

least contain “[f]actual allegations [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the

18

speculative level,” id. All of the plaintiff’s plausible factual allegations are accepted as

19

true and the pleadings are construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Knievel v.

20

ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). Further, despite Twombly and Iqbal, courts

21

continue to construe pro se filings liberally, and give such plaintiffs “the benefit of any

22

doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).

23

II.

BACKGROUND

24

Long’s complaint is extremely thin on detail. It appears that she was a nursing

25

student at Scottsdale Community College, and was dismissed from the program for

26

failure to meet certain academic standards.

27

Community College District (“District”) and nine individuals, alleging four causes of

28

action and claiming that the complaint supports additional causes of action.
-2 

She now sues the Maricopa County

1

III.

ANALYSIS

2

A.

3

Long alleges that “the named employees of the [District], including Donna Lofaso,

4

Jennifer Quinn, Nick Defalco, and Debbie Dollmeyer, intentionally interfered with [her]

5

contractual relationship with [the District] . . . by participating in and making a decision

6

to withdraw her from Block 2 of the Scottsdale Community College nursing program,

7

allegedly due to her obtaining a failing grade in her clinical program in the fall semester

8

2010.” This is insufficient to state a cause of action. Long does not identify the nature of

9

the contract with the District (i.e., what each party to the contract agreed to do), nor does

10

she allege what was improper about these defendants’ actions, nor does she identify the

11

damages she suffered. This cause of action will therefore be dismissed with leave to

12

amend, so that Long may supply the details that are currently lacking.

Intentional Interference with Contract

13

B.

14

Long claims that “by involuntarily withdrawing her from Block 2 and denying her

15

failing grade appeal, her First Amendment rights have been violated.” Long does not

16

identify what part of the First Amendment has been violated (i.e., its protections for

17

religious expression, speech, or assembly). Long does not explain how dismissal from

18

her nursing program and denying her grade appeal violated these rights. Long does not

19

identify who specifically is responsible for this alleged violation. This cause of action

20

will therefore be dismissed with leave to amend, so that Long may supply the details that

21

are currently lacking.

22
23
24
25
26
27

C.

Section 1983: First Amendment

Section 1983: Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection “Class of
One”)

Long claims that “she has been intentionally treated differently from other
similarly situated employees and there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.
Ms. Long was treated differently because of her age and free expression that she was
being so treated.” This claim may fit better under her First Amendment cause of action,
claiming retaliation. But in any event, she does not identify any reason to believe that she

28
-3 

1

was treated differently from similarly situated persons for no rational reason. This cause

2

of action will therefore be dismissed with leave to amend, so that Long may supply the

3

details that are currently lacking.

4

D.

Section 1983: Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process “Stigma-Plus”)

5

Long alleges that “the [District] and the individuals named made false and

6

disparaging remarks about Ms. Long and thereby damaged her reputation.

7

involuntarily withdrawing her from the program and making false statements that she had

8

not attained sufficient competency in the clinical program, rise [sic] to a claim known as

9

a ‘stigma-plus’ claim.” She further claims that she was denied a hearing to clear her

10

By

name.

11

Assuming for purposes of argument that Long has a “stigma-plus” claim, she has

12

identified no basis for believing that she had not in fact failed to attain sufficient

13

competency in the clinical program. Therefore, she has not alleged a basis for believing

14

that any false statement was made. Nor has she specifically identified the defendants

15

who made any such statement, and who heard the statement. Finally, she has not alleged

16

how this supposedly false statement has damaged her. This cause of action will therefore

17

be dismissed with leave to amend, so that Long may supply the details that are currently

18

lacking.

19

E.

20

Under the heading “Other Claims,” Long states that “the facts recited herein also

21

support additional claims, including breach of contract, invasion of privacy, defamation,

22

and intentional infliction of emotional distress.” If Long intends to pursue any of these

23

claims, she must specifically allege them and explain how the facts alleged satisfy those

24

causes of action.

25
26
27
28

“Other Claims”

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 3) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED
with leave to file an amended complaint by March 9, 2012.
-4 

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended

2

complaint by March 9, 2012, the Clerk shall dismiss this action without further order of

3

this Court.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses to file an amended

5

complaint, the complaint may not be served until and unless the Court screens the

6

amended complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

7

Dated this 22nd day of February, 2012.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5