United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
HONORABLE JAMES A. SOTO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending
before the Court is Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”) (Doc. 12). The Court had previously
granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status. (Doc.
11.) Therefore, the Court must screen Plaintiff's FAC.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July
16, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action.[1] The Complaint was
labeled “Criminal Complaint, ” but was construed
as a civil complaint against the named Defendants: Cochise
County Attorney's Office and the Benson City
Attorney's Office. The Complaint alleged: Human
Experimenting, Human Sacrificing, and Ethnic Cleansing. The
only facts pleaded were: “Mario Tamez Cat-Scan; MRI,
Images, photos were used to remove spiritual items,
technology, Law-suit, to torture, experiment, sexual
assaults, human smuggling, terrorist attacks, Causing Damage
to Tamez. Mario Tamez, family members, D.N.A., Brain
including Spiritual.”[2] (Doc. 1.)
The
Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. (Doc. 11.) On
August 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a New Amendent[3] Complaint (Doc.
12), which will be construed as the FAC. The FAC seems to be
on a form from a Federal Court's website. Plaintiff names
Cochise County Attorney's Office, City of Benson, the
Deputy Attorney Ann Roberts, and the State of Arizona.
Plaintiff alleges that state or local actors violated his
federal constitutional or statutory rights of
“Improper, professional, (anti-terrorism)
interrogation, Treatment for serve sx: of psychosis, paranoid
schizophrenia, herpes, vernial wants, Isolation, Brain
wasting, experimential (programs, process for high level sex
offenders, sexual pedartors, treatment, Experimential
Programs for:Past, Present, (including Spiritual Abuse,
molestation, sexualy abused, for self
confession.”[4] (Doc. 12 at 3.) Plaintiff states that the
underlying facts for his claim are: “@ 163 West Mark St
(Property Owners Guadalupe Betty Tamez - Parents) under
Case No. 200201064 (Prop 200) 2003-2007 2009-Set-Aside
restored all rights, A 12 year criminal, sexual, Human
Smuggling, Drug Trafficing, Sex Trafficing investigation
occurred. Finializing with the arrest of myself and
co-defendant Frankie C. Ruiz III age 45 (killed October 12,
2017) Case No: CR201700381, Case No: 20170196, [5] Case No: Frankie
Ruiz III 17-2516 Confidential Informants: Randy Beel, Michele
Beel, Randy Garcia, Stephanie Harp, Susa Harp were used to
obtain, and give criminal information-Isolation,
Interogation, Treatment for serve mental health disease was
issued under Prop 200. Seman, Blood samples were taken to
establish fatherhood of child(ren) - Lilyana Reyes,
”[6] Id. at 4.
II.
DISCUSSION
The
Court is obligated to screen this FAC and dismiss it if
Plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, brings claims that are frivolous or malicious, or
seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that
a pleading contain a “short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Although detailed factual allegations are not required, a
pleading must provide more than “unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s].”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Id.
“[A]
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'” Id. (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. Merely being consistent with
liability is insufficient. Id.
District
courts are required to construe pro se complaints
liberally. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th
Cir. 2010). Further, if a pleading could be cured then the
pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to
amend the complaint. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127-29.
Plaintiff
alleges the following: “@ 163 West Mark St (Property
Owners Guadalupe Betty Tamez - Parents) under Case No.
200201064 (Prop 200) 2003-2007 2009-Set-Aside restored all
rights, A 12 year criminal, sexual, Human Smuggling, Drug
Trafficing, Sex Trafficing investigation occurred.
Finializing with the arrest of myself and co-defendant
Frankie C. Ruiz III age 45 (killed October 12, 2017) Case No:
CR201700381, Case No: 20170196, [7] Case No: Frankie Ruiz III
17-2516 Confidential Informants: Randy Beel, Michele Beel,
Randy Garcia, Stephanie Harp, Susa Harp were used to obtain,
and give criminal information-Isolation, Interogation,
Treatment for serve mental health disease was issued under
Prop 200. Seman, Blood samples were taken to establish
fatherhood of child(ren) - Lilyana Reyes,
”[8] (Doc. 12 at 4.)
The FAC
fails to explain in full sentences any understandable facts
or allegations. Plaintiff does not allege any actions of any
named Defendants (let alone injurious actions to him or
others). The FAC fails to state a claim for which relief can
be granted.
The FAC
will be dismissed with leave to amend because it is not
“absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the
complaint could not be cured by amendment.”
Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621,
623 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). The Second Amended Complaint must comply with the
Federal and Local Rules. See Carter v. Comm'r of
Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986)
(“Although pro se, [plaintiff] is expected to abide by
the rules of the court in which he litigates.”
(citations omitted)). In particular (but not to the exclusion
of other pleading requirements), Plaintiff must set forth
each claim in a separate count. Each count must clearly
identify the Defendants against whom the claim is brought and
provide the facts that support that specific claim.
In
addition to complying with the procedural pleading
requirements, Plaintiff “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 Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570). Although detailed factual allegations are not required,
Plaintiff must provide more than “unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s].”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. This shall include facts to
support allegations against all named Defendants.
Plaintiff
is warned that failure to file a Second Amended Complaint
that complies with this Order may result in dismissal of this
action. Stone v. City of Tucson, 249 F.R.D. 326, 327
(D. Ariz. 2008) (explaining that district courts may dismiss
an action sua sponte pursuant to Federal ...