United States District Court, D. Arizona
Honorable David C. Bury United States District Judge.
October 1, 2019, Plaintiff lodged an affidavit of inability
to pay costs or give security for the commencement of this
action and filed a Complaint, pro se. It appears that he
meets the in forma pauperis requirements of 28 U.S.C.
sues the Pima County Sheriffs Department. He alleges:
“I went to the Pima County Consolidated Justice Court
and my food purchased with SNAP money was taken away without
my consent.” (Complaint (Doc. 1) at 4.) He asserts
federal question jurisdiction based on: “Federal
funding of Food Stamps Program in Arizona.”
Id. at 3.
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only
adjudicate those cases over which they have subject matter
jurisdiction: basically, those cases involving diversity of
citizenship or a federal question. Kikkonen v. Guardian
Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994). Where
there is neither diversity nor a constitutional violation of
an individual's rights, this Court has no jurisdiction
over the action.
1915(e) provides for dismissal of a Complaint filed in forma
pauperis if the Court is convinced that the action is
frivolous. Frivolousness exists if the plaintiff would not be
entitled to relief under any arguable construction of law or
fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
frivolousness includes allegations that are "clearly
baseless," "fanciful," "fantastic,"
or "delusional." Id. at 327-28. Unlike
Rule 12(b)(6), § 1915 “‘accords judges not
only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual
power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual
allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless.'” Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327).
legal frivolousness justifies dismissal under § 1915(e)
where a complaint is based on "an indisputably meritless
legal theory...[such as] claims against which it is clear
that the defendants are immune from suit, and claims of
infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not
exist...." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
Plaintiff fails to allege any facts that would bring this
action within the jurisdiction of the federal court.
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege any facts to
suggest a constitutional violation or violation of federal
law occurred. The Complaint is so factually deficient that
the Court finds there is no basis in fact or law to support a
federal claim. Specifically, the Court is unable to even
guess at what transpired, and it is impossible to attribute
any specific acts to any specific Defendant. The Court can
only guess, given he sues the Pima County Sheriffs
Department, that he is not complaining about a denial of
benefits but is complaining about some sort of seizure by a
Pima County Sheriff of food he purchased using food stamps.
His allegations do not support a section 1983 claim against a
municipality because he does not allege that the
“execution of a government's policy or custom ...
inflict[ed] the injury.” Monell v. Department of
Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (municipality
not liable for under respondeat superior theory for
acts of its employees).
drafting the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff must include
sufficient factual details so that this Court can determine
each claim existing against each Defendant. The Plaintiff
must refer by name to a particular Defendant, whenever
possible, in the body of the Amended Complaint, so that it is
possible to determine which Defendant is being charged with
responsibility for each particular grievance. Jackson v.
Nelson, 405 F.2d 872, 873 (9th Cir. 1968).
“obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement
to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). At the pleading stage, the
Plaintiff must allege enough facts, if taken as true, to
suggest that a claim exists. This does not impose a
probability requirement at the pleading stage, it simply
calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that
discovery will reveal evidence to support the claim.
Id. at 555-556. “[F]actual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level, . . . on the assumption that all the allegations in
the complaint are true even if doubtful in fact.”
IS ORDERED that the Motion to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis, without prepayment of fees and costs or security
therefor (Doc. 2) is GRANTED, and that the Complaint be
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall
file the Complaint, with a filing date of the day the Clerk
of the Court received the petition. Cooper v. City of
Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989).
IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the ...