United States District Court, D. Arizona
Andre H. Ali, Plaintiff,
Cash Time Title Loan Centers, Defendant.
Honorable Bruce G. Macdonald United States Magistrate Judge.
Andre Ali, filed a pro se Complaint (Doc. 1) and did
not immediately pay the $350.00 civil action filing fee, but
filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2).
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Court may allow a plaintiff to proceed without prepayment of
fees when it is shown by affidavit that he “is unable
to pay such fees[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Plaintiff's statement, made under penalty of perjury,
establishes that Plaintiff receives disability benefits. The
statement also indicates that Plaintiff's sole asset is
his vehicle and his expenses nearly equal his income. The
Court finds Plaintiff is unable to pay the fees.
Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) will be granted.
STATUTORY SCREENING OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Court is required to dismiss a case if the Court determines
that the allegation of poverty is untrue, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(A), or if the Court determines that the action
“(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief[.]” Rule 8(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. While Rule 8 does
not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands
more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Id. Where the pleader is pro
se, however, the pleading should be liberally construed
in the interests of justice. Johnson v. Reagan, 524
F.2d 1123, 1124 (9th Cir. 1975); see also Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Nonetheless,
a complaint must set forth a set of facts that serves to put
defendants on notice as to the nature and basis of the
claim(s). See Brazil v. U.S. Dept. of Navy, 66 F.3d
193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995).
“complaint [filed by a pro se plaintiff]
‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Hebbe, 627
F.3d at 342 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). “Rule 8(a)'s
simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions,
with limited exceptions.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema
N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513, 122 S.Ct. 992, 998, 152 L.Ed.2d
1 (2002). “Given the Federal Rules' simplified
standard for pleading, ‘[a] court may dismiss a
complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted
under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with
the allegations.'” Id. at 514, 122 S.Ct.
at 998 (quoting Hison v. King & Spaulding, 467
U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984))
(alterations in original); see also Johnson, et al. v.
City of Shelby, Mississippi, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct.
346, 346 (2014) (“Federal pleading rules call for
‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief, ' Fed. Rule Civ. Proc.
8(a)(2); they do not countenance dismissal of a complaint for
imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim
Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the
allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is
entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before
dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court
should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the
defects. This type of advice “would undermine district
judges' role as impartial decisionmakers.”
Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see
also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to decide
whether the court was required to inform a litigant of
Complaint appears to allege that Defendant attempted to
illegally collect a debt, and refused to accept
Plaintiff's nationality. Compl. (Doc. 1) at 4, 7.
Plaintiff seeks eight (8) million dollars as compensation for
these alleged wrongs. Id. at
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
initial matter, this Court must consider whether it has
jurisdiction to hear Mr. Ali's claims. “Federal
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.”
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511
U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994).
A district court has original jurisdiction “of all
civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
This is known as federal question jurisdiction. District
courts also have original jurisdiction “of all civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a
State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; (3)
citizens of different States and in which citizens or
subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a
foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title as
plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This is referred to as
Complaint (Doc. 1) cannot support diversity jurisdiction as
Plaintiff and Defendant are both citizens of Arizona.
See Compl. (Doc. 1). Furthermore, Plaintiff's
Complaint (Doc. 1) is devoid of any facts to support that he
is alleging a violation of federal law. See id. The
Complaint (Doc. 1) uses terms such as “pain and
suffering, ” “predatory lending, ” and
“religious discrimination” without explanation as
to the circumstances or relevance of the terms to any legal
wrong. Id. at 4, 7. Plaintiff also indicates that
Defendant allegedly “refuse[d] to accept [his]
nationality” without further explanation. Id.
at 7. Exhibits attached to the Complaint include a letter to
President Obama ...