United States District Court, D. Arizona
Honorable Susan M. Brnovich, United States District Judge.
before this Court is Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 19). Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of
the dismissal order (Doc. 18). The case was dismissed because
Plaintiff failed to complete timely service. However, prior
to the case being reassigned to this division, the Amended
Complaint (Doc. 8) was never screened, as required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court will grant
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and reinstate the
case for screening.
Court must review the complaint to determine whether the
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Additionally, Rule 8(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that:
A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an
original claim, counter-claim, cross-claim, or third-party
claim, 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) a demand for judgment for the
relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of
several different types may be demanded.
Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations,
“it demands more than an unadorned, the
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 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “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. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A complaint that provides
“labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor will a
complaint suffice if it presents nothing more than
“naked assertions” without “further factual
enhancement.” Id. at 557.
First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8, “FAC”),
Plaintiff argues that Defendants have failed to
grant and enforce an ADA Reasonable Accommodation to stop
smoke and drug fumes from entering the rental apartment. (FAC
at 1:17-18). Next, he argues that Defendants failed
to grant an allowance for auto repairs on the property as ADA
Reasonable Accommodation. (FAC at 1:22-23). Finally,
Plaintiff argues that Defendants retaliated against
Plaintiff for filing an ADA complaint. (FAC at 1:25-26).
present case, the Court finds that Plaintiff's
allegations fail to state a claim for relief against
Defendants. The FAC is deficient because, as noted in the
italicized language above, it repeatedly lumps together all
of the defendants as a collective whole-
“Defendants”-without specifically alleging the
role that each defendant played in causing Plaintiff's
alleged injury. See, e.g., Dickenson v.
Haga, No. EDCV 18-2464-DOC (KK), 2019 WL 416720, at *3
(C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019) (dismissing complaint at the
screening stage because “Plaintiff merely sets forth
allegations as to actions taken by ‘Defendants' as
a collective group”). “Absent specific
allegations identifying what actions each defendant took
against Plaintiff and how such actions violated
Plaintiff's rights, the Complaint fails to provide
Defendants with fair notice of Plaintiff's claims or the
grounds upon which they rest. As such, Plaintiff's claims
against each individual defendant are subject to
dismissal.” Id. (internal citation omitted);
see De Cambra v. Sakai, Civil No. 14-00279 DKW-BMK,
2014 WL 3108002, at *4 (D. Haw. July 7, 2014)
(“Plaintiff simply . . . concludes that all Defendants,
without differentiation, are liable to him for these alleged
deprivations. . . . To state a claim, Plaintiff must
demonstrate that each Defendant was personally involved in
the alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. . . .
While Plaintiff's Complaint suggests that at least some
of the conditions of confinement in [Saguaro Correctional
Center] segregation may be unlawful, . . . it contains no
facts showing that any particular Defendant acted unlawfully
. . . . [Thus, it] stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of entitlement to
relief.”) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted); Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No.
2:11-cv-03279-MCE-KJN, 2011 WL 6294249, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec.
13, 2011) (“Plaintiffs allegations fail to satisfy the
liberal pleading standards as set forth in [Twombly]
and [Iqbal]. Throughout the Complaint,
Plaintiff[']s allegations are confusing and conclusory,
directed generally at multiple Defendants without
differentiating between the actions of one defendant and
another.”); Corazon v. Aurora Loan Services,
LLC, No. 11-00542 SC, 2011 WL 1740099, at *4 (N.D. Cal.
May 5, 2011).
Plaintiff does not provide facts to support his causes of
action. Plaintiff must state factual allegations and explain
how those allegations establish a violation of a relevant
legal authority. In short, Plaintiff must show he is entitled
to relief. He has not done so here. For this reason, the