United States District Court, D. Arizona
STEPHEN M. McNAMEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
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) and a
Complaint (Doc. 1).
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (Doc. 2)
district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in
forma pauperis upon completion of a proper affidavit of
indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). In the
application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs,
Plaintiff has declared under penalty of perjury that he is
unable to pay the filing fee and other costs associated with
this case. Plaintiff presents financial information to
support his application. Given Plaintiff's lack of income
and the absence of any significant assets, Plaintiff has met
his burden of proof, and his motion will be granted.
Screening of In Forma Pauperis Complaint (Doc. 1)
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
(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.