Lyman v. Arizona Department of Economic Service

Filing 8

ORDER: Plaintiff's request for IFP status 2 is granted; Plaintiff's complaint 1 is dismissed without prejudice; Plaintiff shall have until July 7, 2014 to file an amended complaint; The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action without further order of the Court if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by July 7, 2014. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/6/2014. (ALS)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Alexandro Lyman,

No. CV-14-0964-PHX-DGC
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Arizona Department of Economic Services,
Defendant.

13
14

Plaintiff Alexandro Lyman has filed a complaint against the Arizona Department

15

of Economic Services. Doc. 1. He has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

16

(“IFP”).

17

complaint, and dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

18

I.

Doc. 2.

The Court will grant his application for IFP status, screen his

Motion for IFP Status.

19

Plaintiff attaches an affidavit on a court-approved form which suggests that he

20

receives a total monthly income of $0, that he has monthly expenses totaling $0, and that

21

he has a medical condition that prevents him from working. Doc. 2. His motion for IFP

22

status will be granted.

23

II.

Legal Standard.

24

In IFP proceedings, a district court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court

25

determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted[.]”

26

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Although much of § 1915 concerns prisoner litigation, § 1915(e)

27

applies to all IFP proceedings. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000)

28

(en banc).

“Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) . . . allows a district court to dismiss[ ] sua

1

sponte . . . a complaint that fails to state a claim[.]” Id. at 1130. “It is also clear that

2

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

3

pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Id. at 1127. A district court dismissing

4

under this section “should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading

5

was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the

6

allegation of other facts.” Id. at 1127-29 (citations omitted).

7

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] pleading that

8

states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing

9

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). This short and plain statement

10

“need not contain detailed factual allegations; rather, it must plead ‘enough facts to state

11

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534

12

F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570

13

(2007)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“The plausibility

14

standard . . . asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted

15

unlawfully”).

16

presumption of truthfulness and “conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted

17

inferences are not sufficient.” Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998).

18

Dismissal is appropriate where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory, lacks

19

sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory, or contains allegations disclosing

20

some absolute defense or bar to recovery. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901

21

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); Weisbuch v. Cnty of L.A., 119 F.3d 778, 783 n.1 (9th Cir.

22

1997).

23

III.

Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not given a

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

24

Plaintiff’s complaint contains a rambling and largely incoherent narrative that

25

appears to allege various wrongs committed by the Arizona Department of Economic

26

Security (“DES”), including allegations that DES violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 246,

27

1035, and 2340. Plaintiff alleges virtually no facts in support of these claims, instead

28

claiming that his “health care coverage was stop (sic)” and “food stamps were stop as
-2-

1

while (sic).” Doc. 1 at 3. Plaintiff does not allege when or why his health care coverage

2

and food stamps were allegedly stopped or how those actions violate the statutes

3

referenced.

4

The complaint is difficult to understand, contains virtually no facts, and fails to

5

state a plausible claim for relief. The Court will therefore dismiss it for failure to state a

6

claim. The Court also notes that the complaint fails to state the legal nature of Plaintiff’s

7

claim, the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, the specific defendants being sued, or the

8

actions of those defendants that give rise to liability.

9

IV.

Leave to Amend and Plaintiff’s Obligations.

10

In this circuit, “[a] pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her

11

complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be

12

cured by amendment.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.

13

1988). The Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice and allow Plaintiff to file

14

an amended complaint, consistent with this order, that properly states a claim for relief.

15

Plaintiff shall have until July 7, 2014 to file an amended complaint.

16

Plaintiff is advised that he must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal

17

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District

18

of Arizona (“Local Rules”), which may be obtained in the Clerk of Court’s office. For

19

purposes of the amended complaint, Plaintiff is directed to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of

20

Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint “must contain (1) a short and plain

21

statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of

22

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief

23

sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). These pleading requirements shall be set forth in separate

24

and discrete paragraphs. Rule 8(d) provides that each such paragraph “must be simple,

25

concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

26

The “short and plain statement of the claim” required by Rule 8(a)(2) must not

27

only designate a cause of action, but must also include enough factual allegations to

28

render the claim plausible. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended
-3-

1

complaint asserting constitutional violations by federal or state officials, his pleading

2

should include a statement of the constitutional rights Plaintiff believes to have been

3

violated, how each right was violated, how each defendant contributed to the violation,

4

and what injury was caused by each alleged constitutional violation.

5

allegations must provide enough information to “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable

6

inference that the defendant[s are] liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

7

678.

Such factual

8

If Plaintiff fails to prosecute this action or to comply with the rules or any Court

9

order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

10

Procedure 41(b).

See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

11

(holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se

12

plaintiff’s complaint for failing to comply with a court order).

13

IT IS ORDERED:

14

1.

Plaintiff’s request for IFP status (Doc. 2) is granted.

15

2.

Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice.

16

3.

Plaintiff shall have until July 7, 2014 to file an amended complaint.

17

4.

The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action without further order of the

18

Court if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by July 7, 2014.

19
20

Dated this 6th day of June, 2014.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-