Bey v. Hegyi

Filing 5

ORDER: Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint in this case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 8/4/2014.(ALS)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Prentis Horus Bey,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Hugh E. Hegyi,
13
Defendant.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 14-1645-PHX-JAT
ORDER

15
Plaintiff has moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has concluded that
16
Plaintiff's complaint should be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) before it is
17
allowed to be served. Therefore, the Court will do so in this order.
18
I.

Legal Standards

19
A.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Congress provided with respect to in forma pauperis cases that a district
court "shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines" that the
"allegation of poverty is untrue" or that the "action or appeal" is "frivolous or
malicious," "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," or "seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of section 1915 outlines how prisoners can
file proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e) applies to all in forma
pauperis proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000)("section 1915(e) applies to all in forma
pauperis complaints"). "It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits
but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails
to state a claim." Id. Therefore, this court must dismiss an in forma pauperis
complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious.

27
28

"[A] complaint, containing both factual allegations and legal
conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in

1

fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Furthermore, "a finding
of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level
of the irrational or wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially
recognized facts available to contradict them." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 33 (1992). "A case is malicious if it was filed with the intention or desire
to harm another." Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005).

2
3
4

B.

Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

5
A claim must be stated clearly enough to enable a defendant to frame
a responsive pleading. A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
"Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(e)(1). A complaint having the factual elements of a cause of action
present but scattered throughout the complaint and not organized into a "short
and plain statement of the claim" may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule
8(a). Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988).

6
7
8
9
10

...

11

... In addition, to satisfy Rule 8, each claim must be stated in a separate count.
Bautista v. Los Angeles, 216 F.3d 837, 840-41 (9th Cir. 2000).

12
Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358205, *2-3 (D. Ariz. 2005).
13
II.

Analysis

14
In this case, Plaintiff’s entire complaint is as follows: “Delegation of Authority Order
15
has not been verified. I request to see verified D.O.A.O.” Doc. 1 at 1. The Court finds this
16
fails to meet the pleading standard of Rule 8. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed.
17
III.

Leave to Amend

18
If Plaintiff could cure the deficiencies in the complaint by an amendment, this Court
19

should grant leave to amend. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202,1212 (9th Cir. 2012). Here, the

20
Complaint is so deficient, it is difficult for the Court to even speculate about what additional
21
facts Plaintiff might allege.
22
However, in the attachment to the Complaint at page 2, Plaintiff attaches a letter that
23
he wrote to Defendant which indicates that Defendant is a Superior Court Judge in Arizona.
24
Doc. 1 at 2. Generally, judges are immune from suit for decisions made in the judge’s
25
judicial capacity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-12 (1991). Here, it appears Plaintiff
26
is suing a Superior Court Judge in his official capacity; thus, the Judge would be entitled to
27
immunity. Accordingly, this Court will not grant leave to amend because any amendment
28
-2-

1

would be futile. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203–04 (9th Cir.1988) (per

2

curiam).

3

III.

Conclusion

4

Based on the foregoing,

5

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint in this case is dismissed pursuant

7
8

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
DATED this 4th day of August, 2014.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-