Paulino v. Paulino

Filing 5

ORDER granting 2 Plaintiff's Application/Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Complaint in this case is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and the Clerk shall enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 3/31/15.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Tasha C. Paulino,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Lino A. Paulino, Jr.,
13
Defendant.
14

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

No. CV 15-518-PHX-JAT
ORDER

15
16

The court has concluded that Plaintiff's complaint should be screened pursuant to 28

17

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) before it is allowed to be served. Therefore, the court will do so in this

18

order.

19

I.

Legal Standards

20

A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

21

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

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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

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

11

II.

Analysis

12

In this case, the complaint, including attachments, is 139 pages. Doc. 1. However,

13

only the first two pages of the complaint contain Plaintiff’s allegations. The entirety of the

14

“complaint” portion of Plaintiff’s complaint is as follows:

15
16
17
18
19
20

Oklahoma has yet to serve any real justice on this case/cases to me
caused by the defendant. Complaint being there is no, Prose even if the state
claims there is. I have tried and researched with no relief to file Prose.
Complaint being defendant filed February 6th 2015 with out notifying me or
the court notifying me and I was denied regular visitation. Complaint being
defendant is abusive and refusing me visitation or support of proper alimony
because we are no longer together. Meaning I am no longer under his control
or abuse but he is trying to assume control and abuse me through denial of
visitation and/or custody and proper alimony.
Doc. 1 at 1.

21

The United State Supreme Court has held:

22

...The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and
child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States
has been interpreted by the federal courts to apply with equal vigor in suits
brought pursuant to diversity jurisdiction. This application is consistent with
Barber’s directive to limit federal courts’ exercise of diversity jurisdiction over
suits for divorce and alimony decrees. We conclude, therefore, that the
domestic relations exception, as articulated by this Court since Barber, divests
the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody
decrees. Given the long passage of time without any expression of
congressional dissatisfaction, we have no trouble today reaffirming the validity
of the exception as it pertains to divorce and alimony decrees and child
custody orders.

23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-

1

Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992) (internal citations and quotations

2

omitted).

3
4
5
6

Plaintiff’s complaint falls within the domestic relations exception to federal
jurisdiction. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2)
is granted.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint in this case is dismissed, without

8

prejudice, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and the Clerk of the Court shall enter

9

judgment accordingly.

10

DATED this 31st day of March, 2015.

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