United States District Court, D. Arizona
Dominic W. Lanza, United States District Judge.
before the Court is Plaintiff Noel Edwart Stewart Hall's
Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2),
which the Court hereby grants. The Court will screen
Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2) before it is allowed to be served.
Pursuant to that screening, Plaintiff's complaint (Doc.
1) is dismissed with leave to amend. Also pending is
Plaintiff's “Motion to Rule Ex Parte” (Doc.
7), which the Court construes as a motion for a temporary
restraining order (“TRO”) and denies.
Plaintiff's Complaint Is Dismissed With Leave To
Statutory Screening of Complaints Filed By Pro Se
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a complaint is subject to
dismissal if it contains claims that are “frivolous or
malicious, ” that “fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, ” or that “seek
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” Id. Additionally, under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id.
Although Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations,
“it demands more than an unadorned,
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
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. “Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task
that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.
Thus, although a plaintiff's specific factual allegations
may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must
assess whether there are other “more likely
explanations” for a defendant's conduct.
Id. at 681.
Ninth Circuit has instructed that courts must “construe
pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A
“complaint [filed by a pro se litigant]
‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Id.
(quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(per curiam)). Conclusory and vague allegations, however,
will not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Bd. of
Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th
Cir. 1982). A liberal interpretation may not supply essential
elements of the claim that were not initially pled.
a pleading can be cured by the allegation of other facts, a
pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to
amend before the final dismissal of the action.”
Ball v. Cty. of Maricopa, 2017 WL 1833611, *1 (D.
Ariz. 2017) (concluding that complaint could not be amended
to state a cognizable claim and dismissing with prejudice).
complaint asserts that Defendants discriminated against
Plaintiff in violation of the Fair Housing Act
(“FHA”). However, the complaint itself does not
affirmatively allege any facts at all; the “statement
of claim” section of the pro se complaint form is
conspicuously blank. (Doc. 1 at 4.)
to the complaint is a form that Plaintiff submitted to the
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Civil Rights Division.
(Doc. 1-1 at 2.) In general, it is not the Court's
responsibility to comb through the exhibits attached to a
pro se complaint in an attempt to discern possible
claims for relief. Cf. Turner v. Grievance
Coordinator, 2014 WL 3002082, *3 (D. Nev. 2014)
(dismissing complaint at the screening stage because
“[t]he Court plainly informed plaintiff that all
factual assertions relied upon to state his claims must be
set forth within the four corners of his pleading” yet
plaintiff made “no actual factual allegations in the
amended complaint” and instead submitted
“thirteen pages of exhibits attaching documents
pertaining to grievances and disciplinary
proceedings”). Nevertheless, in this case, the Court
will attempt to do so.
attached complaint form, Plaintiff alleged the following
A. In or around July 16, 2018, [Plaintiff] signed a one year
lease and moved into [a condominium unit (“the Leased
B. On June 13, 2019, [Plaintiff] was served with [a] Notice
for Eviction because Respondent alleged [Plaintiff] made a
threat to shoot the landlord's agents and associate
parties. On June 27, 2019, [Plaintiff] received a thirty (30)
Day Notice of Intent to not renew [Plaintiff's] lease and
a notice was further provided that the landlord has decided
to not renew [Plaintiff's] residential ...