United States District Court, D. Arizona
Honorable John J. Tuchi, United States District Judge.
issue is pro se Plaintiff James Jones's
Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(Doc. 2) and Motion for Service (Doc. 4). Having determined
that Plaintiff is unable to pay the Court's fees, the
Court grants the Application (Doc. 2). However, as set forth
below, upon screening Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court finds that the
Complaint fails to state a claim and dismisses it without
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
cases in which a party is permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis-that is, the party lacks the means to pay court
fees-Congress provided 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). Section 1915(e)
applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings.
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000).
“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. at 1127. “The standard for determining
whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the
same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard
for failure to state a claim.” Watison v.
Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012).
Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Federal Court
state courts, federal courts only have jurisdiction over a
limited number of cases, and those cases typically involve
either a controversy between citizens of different states
(“diversity jurisdiction”) or a question of
federal law (“federal question jurisdiction”).
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The United
States Supreme Court has stated that a federal court must not
disregard or evade the limits on its subject matter
jurisdiction. Owen Equip. & Erections Co. v.
Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). Thus, a federal court
is obligated to inquire into its subject matter jurisdiction
in each case and to dismiss a case when subject matter
jurisdiction is lacking. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins.
Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(h)(3). To proceed in federal court, a plaintiff must
allege enough in the complaint for the court to conclude it
has subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a); Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 5 Fed.
Practice & Procedure § 1206 (3d ed. 2014).
Sufficiency of a Claim
complaint must include “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The complaint must
contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The Court is to construe a pro
se plaintiff's complaint “liberally” and
afford the plaintiff “the benefit of any doubt.”
Watison, 668 F.3d at 1112 (citation omitted). For
purposes of dismissal, the court considers only allegations
contained in the complaint and those exhibits attached to the
complaint. Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51
F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995).
Sufficiency of the Complaint
review of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1, Compl.), the
Court finds that the Complaint fails to comply with Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10(b). Rule 8(a) requires
A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an
original claim, counter-claim, cross-claim, or third-party
claims, shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the
grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends,
unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs
no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief; and (3) ...