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)

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-