Hammo v. Fed. Bureau of Investigations

Full title: Khalaf Hammo, Plaintiff, v. Federal Bureau of Investigations, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Aug 28, 2018

No. CV-18-02691-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Aug. 28, 2018)

Opinion

No. CV-18-02691-PHX-JAT

08-28-2018

Khalaf Hammo, Plaintiff, v. Federal Bureau of Investigations, Defendant.

James A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. In 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),

Congress provided with respect to in forma pauperis cases that a district court "shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines" that the "allegation of poverty is untrue" or that the "action or appeal" is "frivolous or malicious," "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of section 1915 outlines how prisoners can file proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) ("section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints"). "It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim." Id. Therefore, this court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious.
...
A claim must be stated clearly enough to enable a defendant to frame a responsive pleading. A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). "Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1). A complaint having the factual elements of a cause of action present but scattered throughout the complaint and not organized into a "short and plain statement of the claim" may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a). Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988).

Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358205, *2-*3 (D. Ariz. 2005).

Here, it appears that both the allegation of poverty is untrue and the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. First, Plaintiff states that he and his spouse, in a community property state, make a combined $2,700.00 per month and have $1,691.00 in expenses. (Doc. 2). This would leave sufficient funds after expenses to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied.

Second, the total allegations in the complaint are, "right violated" (Doc. 1 at 3), "damaged my reputation and hurt me [psychologically]" (Doc. 1 at 3) and "asking for justice and compensation for what they caused to my future and to myself." (Doc. 1 at 4). These allegations are inadequate to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8's pleading standard. Thus, the complaint fails to state a claim. However, because the Court will deny the request to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will not dismiss the complaint on this alternative basis.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied. Plaintiff has 14 days to pay the filing fee or the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss this case, without prejudice, and enter judgment accordingly.

Dated this 28th day of August, 2018.

/s/_________

James A. Teilborg

Senior United States District Judge