United States District Court, D. Arizona
S. WILLETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in
District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2).
Plaintiff has consented to the exercise of Magistrate Judge
Jurisdiction (Doc. 7). The Court finds that Plaintiff does
not have sufficient means to pay the Court's fees and
will grant the Application (Doc. 2). Upon screening the
Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),
the Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the pleading
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
fails to state a cause of action. The Court therefore
dismisses the Complaint (Doc. 1) without prejudice and grants
Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint consistent
with the findings of the Court set forth herein.
Statutory Screening of In Forma Pauperis Complaint Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
respect to in forma pauperis proceedings, the Court shall
dismiss such action at any time if it determines that:
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal -
(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). See also Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 fnt. 7 (9th Cir. 2000)
(stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “applies to all
in forma pauperis complaints”). The Court must dismiss
an in forma pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim
or if it is frivolous or malicious. Lopez, 203 F.3d
at 1127 (“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.”); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,
1226-27 (9th Cir. 1984).
order to state a claim for relief, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure require that a complaint must include: (1) “a
short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's
jurisdiction;” (2) “a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief;” and (3) “a demand for the relief
sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). The short and plain
statement for relief “need not contain detailed factual
allegations; rather, it must plead ‘enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
534 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Rule 8
“demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation, ”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and
“conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted
inferences are not sufficient, ” Pareto v.
F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998).
“[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and
direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). See also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 10(b) (“A party must state its claims or
defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as
practicable to a single set of circumstances.”). Where
a complaint contains the factual elements of a cause, but
those elements are scattered throughout the complaint without
any meaningful organization, the complaint does not set forth
a “short and plain statement of the claim” for
purposes of Rule 8. Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co.,
864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, a complaint may be
dismissed where it lacks a cognizable legal theory, lacks
sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory, or
contains allegations disclosing some absolute defense or bar
to recovery. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); Weisbuch
v. County of L.A., 119 F.3d 778, 783, n. 1 (9th Cir.
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). “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.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Pleading in Federal
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 ...