Jones v. Mohave, County of et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting 14 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint no later than 21 days from the date of this Order. The Clerk shall dismiss this case with prejudice if Plaintiff fails to comply. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 8 and 11 Motions for Summary Judgment for Writ of Execution and denying 21 Plaintiff's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 1/11/12.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

James Luther Jones Junior,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
Mohave County; Carol Meier, Mohave)
County Recorder,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

No. CV 11-8093-PCT-JAT
ORDER

16
17

Pending before the Court are: Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment for Writ of

18

Execution (Docs. 8 and 11); Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14); and

19

Plaintiff’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and Order to Show Cause (Doc. 21). The Motions

20

are fully briefed and the Court now rules on the Motions.1

21

I.

Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

22

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed because it “either

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a “demand for evidentiary hearing and order
to show cause,” (Doc. 21) wherein Plaintiff argues that he should be “afforded the
opportunity to present his evidence.” Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any basis for
such an evidentiary hearing or order to show cause. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s demand for
evidentiary hearing and order to show cause will be denied. In the future, if Plaintiff wants
an oral argument on any motions pending before the Court, he must request oral argument
in his motion or in his response to Defendants’ motion.

1

asserts a legal theory that is not legally cognizable or because the factual allegations do not

2

show a plausible entitlement to relief under any cognizable legal theory.” (Doc. 14 at 4).

3

A.

Legal Standard

4

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim, a complaint must meet

5

the requirements of Rule 8. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim

6

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” so that the defendant has “fair notice of what

7

the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

8

544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

9

Although a complaint attacked for failure to state a claim does not need detailed

10

factual allegations, the pleader’s obligation to provide the grounds for relief requires “more

11

than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action

12

will not do.” Id. (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The factual

13

allegations of the complaint must be sufficient to raise a right to relief above a speculative

14

level. Id.

15

Rule 8’s pleading standard demands more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-

16

unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, __, 129 S. Ct. 1937,

17

1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A complaint that offers nothing more than

18

blanket assertions will not suffice. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain

19

sufficient factual matter, which, if accepted as true, states a claim to relief that is “plausible

20

on its face.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Facial plausibility exists if the pleader pleads factual

21

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for

22

the misconduct alleged. Id. Plausibility does not equal “probability,” but plausibility

23

requires more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. “Where a

24

complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent’ with a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short

25

of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting

26

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court must construe

27

his Complaint liberally, even when evaluating it under the Iqbal standard. Johnson v. Lucent

28

Technologies Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011).
-2-

1

In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must construe the facts

2

alleged in a complaint in the light most favorable to the drafter of the complaint and must

3

accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428,

4

435 (9th Cir. 2000). Nonetheless, the Court does not have to accept as true a legal

5

conclusion couched as a factual allegation. Papasan, 478 U.S. at 286.

6
7

B.

Analysis
1.

Failure to Provide a Short, Plain Statement of the Claim as
Required by Rule 8.

8
The Complaint fails to meet the pleading standard set forth in Rule 8 of the Federal
9
Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a plaintiff to “plead a short and plain statement of
10
the elements of his or her claim, identifying the transaction or occurrence giving rise to the
11
claim and the elements of the prima facie case.” Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d
12
837, 840 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, Rule 8 requires each allegation of a complaint to be
13
“simple, concise, and direct.” FED.R.CIV.P. 8(d)(1). This requirement “applies to good
14
claims as well as bad, and is the basis for dismissal independent of Rule 12(b)(6).” McHenry
15
v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). “Something labeled a complaint but written
16
more as a press release, prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and
17
clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential
18
functions of a complaint.” Id. at 1180. “Prolix, confusing complaints . . . impose unfair
19
burdens on litigants and judges.” Id. at 1179. Here, the Complaint fails to meet the Rule 8
20
pleading requirements.
21
The Complaint fails to provide a factual basis for any of Plaintiff’s claims. In his
22
Complaint, Plaintiff lists violations of: Article III, section 2 of the United States Constitution,
23
28 U.S.C. sections 1333, 1337, 2461, and 2463, and Uniform Commercial Code § 1-103.
24
Although Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have violated the aforementioned federal statutes,
25
the Uniform Commercial Code, and the United States Constitution, Plaintiff has failed to
26
provide any factual basis alleging the reasons he is suing Defendants. Due to this lack of
27
factual basis, Plaintiff has not met Rule 8’s requirements to connect Defendants’ allegedly
28
-3-

1

wrongful actions with the list of federal statutes, portions of the Uniform Commercial Code,

2

and case law provided in his Complaint. See, e.g., Noatak v. Hoffman, 896 F.2d 1157, 1166

3

(9th Cir. 1990) (Kozinski, J. dissenting) (majority opinion rev’d 501 U.S. 775 (1991) (“To

4

state a federal claim, it is not enough to invoke a constitutional provision or to come up with

5

a catalogue of federal statutes allegedly implicated. Rather, as the Supreme Court has

6

repeatedly admonished, it is necessary to state a claim that is substantial.”).

7

The closest Plaintiff comes to providing notice to Defendants of the factual basis of

8

his claims is his allegation that Defendant Carol Meier, Mohave County Recorder, failed to

9

record “UCC1 Liens, Maritime Liens and Judgments in Nihil Dicit,” which is the “cause of

10

this affidavit of complaint.” (Doc. 1-1 at 3). The remedy Plaintiff seeks in his Complaint

11

is “ a Writ of Execution to enforce the Judgment in Nihil Dicit and to include an arrest in

12

Rem of Mohave County Recorder Carol Meier’s Bond.” (Doc. 1-1 at 7). Based on these

13

allegations, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

14

Accordingly, because the Complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of

15

each claim showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief and lacks the simple, concise and direct

16

allegations required by Rule 8, Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed.

17

II.

18

Plaintiff has requested leave to amend. (Doc. 1-1 at 2). In this case, Plaintiff has not

19

amended the Complaint as a matter of right pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil

20

Procedure. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on September 22, 2011 (Doc. 14).

LEAVE TO AMEND

21

Because the 21-day time frame to file an amendment following a motion to dismiss

22

has expired, Plaintiff has lost the right to amend the Complaint once as a matter of course.

23

FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a)(1). However, the Ninth Circuit has instructed district courts to grant

24

leave to amend, sua sponte, when dismissing a case for failure to state a claim, “unless the

25

court determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegations of other

26

facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Doe v. United States,

27

58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)). There is a “longstanding rule that ‘[l]eave to amend

28

should be granted if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect.’” Id.
-4-

1

at 1129 (quoting Balistreri v. Pac. Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1990)).

2

Plaintiff will be given a reasonable opportunity, if he so chooses, to amend the

3

Complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in this Order, and to provide Defendants with

4

notice of the factual basis of his claims in short plain statements in the manner required by

5

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

6

III.

7

For the reasons set forth above, the Court will grant the pending Motion to Dismiss

8
9
10
11

CONCLUSION

without prejudice, and will permit Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is
granted.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint no later

13

than 21 days from the date of this Order. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint

14

within 21 days, then the Clerk of the Court shall, without further Court order, dismiss this

15

case with prejudice.

16
17
18
19
20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment for
Writ of Execution (Docs. 8 and 11) are denied as moot.2
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and
Order to Show Cause (Doc. 21) is denied.
DATED this 11th day of January, 2012.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

In both Motions for Summary Judgment for Writ of Execution, Plaintiff requests
an “Order for Writ of Execution for the Judgment in Nihil Dicit including an arrest in Rem
of Mohave County Recorder Carol Meier’s Bond.” This is duplicative of the relief Plaintiff
seeks in his Complaint and Plaintiff again fails to state any basis setting forth his entitlement
to such an Order.
-5-