Williams v. Williams

Full title: Baron J. Williams, Plaintiff, v. B.M. Williams, et al., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Feb 24, 2011

No. CV10-2286-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. Feb. 24, 2011)

Opinion

No. CV10-2286-PHX-DGC.

February 24, 2011

ORDER

DAVID CAMPBELL, District Judge

Plaintiff Baron J. Williams commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint against Defendant on October 26, 2010. Doc. 1. Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Doc. 3. The Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice and deny the motion as moot.

I. Dismissal of the Complaint.

In IFP proceedings, a district court "shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of § 1915 concerns prisoner litigation, § 1915(e) applies to all IFP proceedings. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). "Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) . . . allows a district court to dismiss[] sua sponte . . . a complaint that fails to state a claim[.]" Id. at 1130. "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. at 1127. A district court dismissing under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) "should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts." Id. at 1127-29 (citations omitted).

"[A] federal court may dismiss sua sponte if jurisdiction is lacking." Fiedler v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78 (9th Cir. 1983); see Franklin v. Or. State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) (same). Plaintiffs must provide a statement of the grounds for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) ("A pleading . . . shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends[.]"). The complaint alleges violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights, but does not specify the statutory basis for jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nor does the complaint assert that the parties are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The Court accordingly will dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); Franklin, 662 F.2d at 1343 (affirming sua sponte dismissal of claims that did not state a federal cause of action); Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 (courts must presume lack of jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise).

The Court also notes that the complaint attempts to address several different alleged wrongs in a single long paragraph. In any amended complaint, Plaintiff should set forth separate claims in separate counts, identifying the defendant or defendants who are alleged to be liable in each count.

II. Leave to Amend the Complaint.

III. Plaintiff's Obligations.

Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep't839 F.2d 621623See generally 17 U.S.C. §§ 501and35 U.S.C. §§ 271et seq. March 18, 2011 88884

The amended complaint must give Defendants fair notice of what Plaintiff's claims are and the grounds upon which they are based. See Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005). This includes some factual basis for the claims and the specific legal theory supporting each claim. See id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The amended complaint must also provide a clear statement of this Court's jurisdiction and the relief Plaintiff seeks. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1), (3).

Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to prosecute this action or comply with the rules or any Court order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992).

IV. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

Because the complaint will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the Court will deny as moot Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff may file another motion to proceed in forma pauperis if he decides to file an amended complaint as permitted by this order. Plaintiff is advised that his supporting financial affidavit must be complete. The instant affidavit is not signed by Plaintiff. See Doc. 2 at 1.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

2. Plaintiff has until March 18, 2011 to file an amended complaint. The Clerk shall terminate this action without further notice if Plaintiff fails to comply with this deadline

3. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is denied as moot.

Dated this 24th day of February, 2011.