Williams v. Black

Filing 4

ORDER denying without prejudice 2 Plaintiff's Request/Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend by 1/6/2014. Clerk to terminate this action if Plaintiff fails to comply. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/12/13.(LSP)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 No. CV13-1978-PHX-DGC Casey R. Williams, Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Chief Black, Defendants. 13 14 Plaintiff Casey R. Williams commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint on 15 September 30, 2013. Doc. 1. Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 16 (“IFP”). Doc. 2. For reasons that follow, the Court will dismiss the complaint and deny 17 the motion without prejudice. 18 I. Dismissal of the Complaint. 19 In IFP proceedings, a district court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 20 determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted[.]” 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of § 1915 concerns prisoner litigation, § 1915(e) 22 applies to all IFP proceedings. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2000) 23 (en banc). 24 sponte . . . a complaint that fails to state a claim[.]” Id. at 1130. “It is also clear that 25 section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma 26 pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Id. at 1127. A district court dismissing 27 under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) “should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the 28 pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by “Section 1915(e) (2)(B)(ii) . . . allows a district court to dismiss[ ] sua 1 the allegation of other facts.” Id. at 1127–29 (citations omitted). 2 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] pleading that 3 states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing 4 that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). This short and plain statement 5 “need not contain detailed factual allegations; rather, it must plead ‘enough facts to state 6 a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 7 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 8 (2007)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“The plausibility 9 standard . . . asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 10 unlawfully”). Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not given a 11 presumption of truthfulness and “conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted 12 inferences are not sufficient.” Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). 13 Dismissal is appropriate where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory, lacks 14 sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory, or contains allegations disclosing 15 some absolute defense or bar to recovery. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 16 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); Weisbuch v. County of L.A., 119 F.3d 778, 783, n.1 (9th 17 Cir. 1997). 18 II. Plaintiff’s Complaint. 19 Plaintiff’s complaint asserts that the Glendale Police Department allegedly 20 arrested and detained Plaintiff and placed him in “Magellan’s.” It also alleges a battery, 21 sexual harassment, monitoring and war crimes. It contains virtually no facts in support of 22 these claims. Attached to the complaint is a document entitled “Important Key Words.” 23 It is not clear to the Court how this document relates to Plaintiff’s complaint. 24 Because the complaint is difficult to understand, contains virtually no facts, and 25 fails to state a plausible claim for relief, the Court will dismiss it for failure to state a 26 claim. The Court also notes that the complaint fails to state the legal nature of Plaintiff’s 27 claim, the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, the specific defendants being sued, or the 28 -2- 1 actions of those defendant that give rise to liability. 2 III. Leave to Amend and Plaintiff’s Obligations. 3 In this circuit, “[a] pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her 4 complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be 5 cured by amendment.” Karim–Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 6 1988). The Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice and allow Plaintiff to file 7 an amended complaint, consistent with this order, that properly states a claim for relief. 8 Plaintiff shall have until January 6, 2014 to file an amended complaint. 9 Plaintiff is advised that he must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal 10 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District 11 of Arizona (“Local Rules”), which may be obtained in the Clerk of Court’s office. For 12 purposes of the amended complaint, Plaintiff is directed to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of 13 Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint “must contain (1) a short and plain 14 statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . (2) a short and plain statement of 15 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief 16 sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). These pleading requirements shall be set forth in separate 17 and discrete paragraphs. Rule 8(d) provides that each such paragraph “must be simple, 18 concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 19 The “short and plain statement of the claim” required by Rule 8(a)(2) must not 20 only designate a cause of action, but must also include enough factual allegations to 21 render the claim plausible. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended 22 complaint asserting constitutional violations by federal or state officials, his pleading 23 should include a statement of the constitutional rights Plaintiff believes to have been 24 violated, how each right was violated, how each defendant contributed to the violation, 25 and what injury was caused by each alleged constitutional violation. 26 allegations must provide enough information to “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable 27 inference that the defendant[s are] liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 28 -3- Such factual 1 678. 2 If Plaintiff fails to prosecute this action or to comply with the rules or any Court 3 order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 4 Procedure 41(b). 5 (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se 6 plaintiff’s complaint for failing to comply with a court order). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 7 IT IS ORDERED: 8 1. Plaintiff’s request for IFP status (Doc. 2) is denied without prejudice. 9 2. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice. 10 3. Plaintiff shall have until January 6, 2014, to file an amended complaint. 11 4. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action without further order of Court 12 13 if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by January 6, 2014. Dated this 12th day of December, 2013. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-

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?