Maina v. Crank et al
Filing
8
ORDER Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2 ) is granted. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1 ) is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Plaintiff's Motion to Allow Electronic Filing (Doc. 3 ) is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 01/29/2025. (VSB)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
John N Maina,
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
12
Dearlynn Mae Crank, et al.,
13
No. CV-24-00600-TUC-RM
ORDER
Defendants.
14
15
On December 16, 2024, Plaintiff John N. Maina filed a pro se Complaint (Doc. 1),
16
along with an Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2), and a
17
Motion to Allow Electronic Filing by a Party Appearing Without an Attorney (Doc. 3).
18
For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in
19
Forma Pauperis, dismiss his Complaint without leave to amend, and deny as moot his
20
Motion to Allow Electronic Filing.
21
I.
Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
22
In his Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Plaintiff avers that he has a net
23
income of $500.00 per week, with $65.00 in savings, no assets, and significant medical
24
and tax debt. (Doc. 2.) The Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of these
25
proceedings and will accordingly grant his Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.
26
II.
Statutory Screening of Complaints
27
The Prison Litigation Reform Act states that a district court “shall dismiss” an in
28
forma pauperis complaint if, at any time, the court determines that the action “is frivolous
1
or malicious” or that it “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C.
2
§ 1915(e)(2). “[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just
3
those filed by prisoners.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc);
4
see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
5
A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
6
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8
7
does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-
8
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
9
(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
10
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
11
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
12
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell
13
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the
14
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
15
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
16
complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires
17
the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.
18
Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual allegations may be consistent with a
19
constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there are other “more likely
20
explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681.
Id.
“Determining whether a
21
As the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts
22
must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342
23
(9th Cir. 2010). A complaint filed by a pro se litigant “must be held to less stringent
24
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).
25
Nevertheless, “a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential
26
elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,
27
268 (9th Cir. 1982).
28
If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other
-2-
1
facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal
2
of the action. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127-29.
3
III.
Plaintiff’s Complaint
4
In his Complaint, Plaintiff cites as the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction 18 U.S.C.
5
§§ 2511 and 2661A, which are federal criminal statutes. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges
6
that, in 2016, Defendants used his email and phone number to stalk and target him, then
7
conspired to facilitate and plan attacks to his location “through voip and neutral tandem.”
8
(Id. at 4.)
9
IV.
Failure to State a Claim
10
Criminal statutes do not give rise to civil liability, and private plaintiffs in civil
11
actions cannot assert violations of criminal statutes. See Arellano v. Becton, No. 24-cv-
12
02250-WHO, 2024 WL 3908114, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2024) (citing Allen v. Gold
13
Cnty. Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to
14
establish a basis for this Court’s civil jurisdiction and has failed to state a claim upon
15
which relief can be granted. Because the deficiencies of Plaintiff’s Complaint could not
16
be cured by the allegation of other facts, the Court will dismiss the Complaint without
17
leave to amend.
18
Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Electronic Filing.
19
Given the dismissal of this action, the Court will deny as moot
IT IS ORDERED:
20
1. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted.
21
2. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to
22
23
24
enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Electronic Filing (Doc. 3) is denied as moot.
Dated this 29th day of January, 2025.
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?