United States District Court, D. Arizona
AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Camille D. Bibles, United States Magistrate Judge
THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. McNAMEE:
a self-represented litigant, applies to proceed in this Court
without prepaying fees and costs. (ECF No. 2). In his
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs Plaintiff indicates his average monthly income
is $900, that he is self-employed; that he has no bank
accounts, cash or savings, or assets; and that his monthly
living expenses total $989, exclusive of his probation fees.
(Id.). Accordingly, because it appears Plaintiff has
met the requirement for indigency, it is recommended that
Plaintiff's motion at ECF No. 2 be granted.
Court grants the motion to proceed without prepayment of
costs or fees, the Court is required to review
Plaintiff's complaint and to dismiss it if the
allegations are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim
on which relief may be granted, or if Plaintiff “seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must
contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for
the court's jurisdiction, ” “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief, ” and “a demand for the
relief sought.” A complaint must also plead sufficient
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). Because one of the primary functions of a complaint
is to provide defendants with notice of the legal claims
asserted against them and the factual basis for those claims,
a complaint written without clarity and specificity as to who
is being sued and for what, “fails to perform the
essential functions of a complaint.” McHenry v.
Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996).
Complaint asserts the Court's jurisdiction is pursuant to
the diversity of the parties, and alleges Plaintiff is a
citizen of Arizona and the individual defendant is a citizen
of New York and the corporate defendant's principal place
of business is New York. (ECF No. 1 at 3-4). Plaintiff
asserts the amount in controversy is “$10, 000,
000.” (ECF No. 1 at 4). Plaintiff's Complaint was
classified as asserting a cause of action based on libel and
“‘One who publishes a false and defamatory
communication concerning a private person . . . is subject to
liability, if, but only if, he (a) knows that the statement
is false and it defames the other, (b) acts in reckless
disregard of these matters, or (c) acts negligently in
failing to ascertain them.'” Rowland v. Union
Hills Country Club, 157 Ariz. 301, 306 (Ariz.Ct.App.
1988), quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts §
580(B) (1977) (alteration in Rowland; emphasis in
Rowland omitted); see also Peagler v. Phoenix
Newspapers, Inc., 114 Ariz. 309, 315  (1977).
. . . Publication for defamation purposes is communication to
a third party. See Morris v. Warner, 160 Ariz. 55,
62, 770 P.2d 359, 366 (App. 1988); Restatement § 577.
Dube v. Likins, 216 Ariz. 406, 417 (Ariz.Ct.App.
to be entitled to damages pursuant to a claim of libel, the
plaintiff must establish the defendant
“published” a false and defamatory statement
about the plaintiff that tended to bring them “into
disrepute, contempt, or ridicule, ” or to
“impeach his honesty, integrity, virtue or
reputation.” Central Arizona Light & Power Co.
v. Akers, 45 Ariz. 526, 536 (1935). The substantial or
substantive truth of the allegedly defamatory statement is a
complete defense to such a claim. Id. at 543.
See also Desert Palm Surgical Gr., P.L.C. v. Petta,
236 Ariz. 568, 579 (Ariz.Ct.App. 2015). Statements made with
actual malice, if true, are not actionable. See Fendler
v. Phoenix Newspapers Inc., 130 Ariz. 475, 480
the “facts showing that each plaintiff is entitled to
the damages or other relief sought, ” and “how
each defendant was involved and what each defendant did that
caused the plaintiff harm or violated the plaintiff's
rights, ” “including the dates and places of that
involvement or conduct” states, in its entirety:
Francesca AKA Fran has slander my name and ruined my company
that I owned for 5 years I can no longer work for insurance
company's because of her and the people she knows whom
talk about me and the lies that she has told, Fran was upset
because I closed a part of my company that she was going to
run in New York after I closed the contract she went on a
[smear] campaign. (sic)
(ECF No. 1 at 4). In his claim for relief Plaintiff asks the
order Francesca to never speak my name again and to publicly
apologize for the lies she has told and I ask the court to
grant the pain, suffering, and [illegible] amount of $10,
000, 000 to make an example of her ...