Armstrong v. Vocational Rehabilitation Administration

Filing 6

ORDER: Plaintiff Andre Armstrong's Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 is granted. Plaintiff's Complaint 1 is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint that complies with Rules 8 and 10(b) and states a basis for this Court's jurisdiction no later than 21 days from the date of this Order. If no Amended Complaint is timely filed, the Clerk shall dismiss this action without further Order of the Court. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem 5 is denied as moot. Plaintiff may refile any such Motion if and when an Amended Complaint exists that complies with this Order. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 8/07/2017. (REK)

1

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Andre Armstrong,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-02145-PHX-JJT

Vocational Rehabilitation Administration,

13

Defendant.

14
15

At issue is pro se Plaintiff Andre Armstrong’s Application for Leave to Proceed In

16

Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) and Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem (Doc. 5). Having

17

determined that Plaintiff is unable to pay the Court’s fees, the Court grants the Application.

18

However, as set forth below, upon screening Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1, Compl.)

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court finds that the Complaint fails to establish that

20

the Court has jurisdiction over this matter.

21

I.

LEGAL STANDARDS

22

A.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

23

For cases in which a party is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis—that is, the

24

party lacks the means to pay court fees—Congress provided that a district court “shall

25

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that the “allegation of poverty is

26

untrue” or that the “action or appeal” is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on

27

which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

28

from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis

1

proceedings. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). “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.

4

B.

5

Unlike state courts, federal courts only have jurisdiction over a limited number of

6

cases, and those cases typically involve either a controversy between citizens of different

7

states (“diversity jurisdiction”) or a question of federal law (“federal question

8

jurisdiction”). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The United States Supreme Court has stated

9

that a federal court must not disregard or evade the limits on its subject matter

10

jurisdiction. Owen Equip. & Erections Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). Thus, a

11

federal court is obligated to inquire into its subject matter jurisdiction in each case and to

12

dismiss a case when subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,

13

372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Pleading in Federal Court

14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides that a complaint must include “a

15

short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” and “a short and

16

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In other words,

17

to proceed in federal court, a plaintiff must allege enough in the complaint for the court to

18

conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction. See Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,

19

5 Fed. Practice & Procedure § 1206 (3d ed. 2014). The complaint must also contain

20

“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

21

face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

22

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

23

II.

ANALYSIS

24

In the Complaint, Plaintiff fails to state the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over

25

this matter. Instead, the single page, single paragraph Complaint simply states that a

26

governmental agency has harassed and caused Plaintiff harm. The Complaint then asks the

27

Court to forward him the correct forms to file a proper Complaint. This is insufficient to

28

establish this Court’s jurisdiction over this matter.

-2-

1

Furthermore, a complaint must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim.

2

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Here, it is wholly unclear what harm Plaintiff has suffered or how

3

Defendant has caused such harm. Thus, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for

4

failure to state a claim. In so dismissing, the Court must also deny Plaintiff’s Motion to

5

Appoint a Guardian Ad Litem. (Doc. 5.) Without a proper Complaint on file, or a

6

determination that this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim, Plaintiff cannot

7

establish he is entitled to such relief. See, e.g., Ingram v. City of San Francisco, No. C12-

8

3038 JSC, 2012 WL 3257805, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2012) (declining to appoint

9

guardian ad litem without a meritorious claim, while acknowledging that “persons deemed

10

incompetent litigants may have potentially meritorious claims and therefore warrant the

11

appointment of a guardian ad litem”).

12

For links to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules as well as

13

information about creating a complaint and filing it in this Court, Plaintiff may refer to the

14

section entitled “For those Proceeding Without an Attorney” on the Court’s website,

15

www.azd.uscourts.gov.

16
17

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff Andre Armstrong’s Application
for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2).

18
19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed
without prejudice.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint that

21

complies with Rules 8 and 10(b) and states a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction no later

22

than 21 days from the date of this Order. If no Amended Complaint is timely filed, the

23

Clerk shall dismiss this action without further Order of the Court.

24

....

25

....

26

....

27

....

28

....

-3-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint

2

Guardian Ad Litem (Doc. 5). Plaintiff may refile any such Motion if and when an Amended

3

Complaint exists that complies with this Order.

4

Dated this 7th day of August, 2017.

5
6
7

Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-