Opinion
CV-24-00374-TUC-RCC
07-31-2024
Angela Dawn Dowling, Plaintiff, v. Unknown Party, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
HONORABLE RANER C. COLLINS, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Angela Dawn Dowling's Complaint (Doc. 1) and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP Application") (Doc. 2).
I. IFP Application
A party who files an action in federal district court must generally pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, indigent plaintiffs may apply for a fee waiver. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court must determine whether the litigant is unable to pay the filing fee before granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Here, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's IFP Application (Doc. 2) and, good cause appearing, will grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
II. Statutory Screening of IFP Complaint
A district court must screen and dismiss a complaint, or any portion of a complaint, filed in forma pauperis that "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). The district court applies the same standard that is applied to a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, the complaint must include a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The pleading standard does not demand "'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
To meet this standard, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim to relief is only 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. Therefore, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id.
The Court "construe[s] 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)).
III. Plaintiff's Complaint
The Complaint is sparse. Plaintiff names "'Know' Authorities" and "One Lady Dallas Officer?" as Defendants, although she lists "The, People[,] United State Attorneys Office [sic] & State Attorneys Office Texas" in the caption. (Doc. 1 at 1-2.) Plaintiff indicates that the Court has federal question jurisdiction based on "police brutality, assult [sic], harassment, violating, intent serveral [sic] injuries, surgeries, physically, mentally diagnostic, testing." (Id. at 3.) She states there is no amount in controversy. (Id. at 4.) As her statement of the claim, Plaintiff simply writes, "stop vehicle with force with harm intent left homeless with clothes 2 year in row" and "intent without force without harm, Texas, New Jersey, California, assult [sic], police brutality, harassment Washington, DC, 5 years stole vehicle." (Id.) As to the date that the events took place, Plaintiff lists the years 2019 through 2024, but provides no other detail. (Id.) When asked to describe the facts underlying her claim, Plaintiff merely put "'in question'" as a response. (Id.) The injury she explains is "violating intent several injuries[,] surgeries, physically + mentally diagnostic, testing[,] harassment, assult [sic]." (Id. at 5.) She states she seeks no relief, having written "none" in response to the relief she asks the court to order. (Id.)
IV. Discussion
Simply put, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any basis upon which to assess her claim. First, "a federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no jurisdiction." Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). It is not clear from the Complaint that this Court has jurisdiction. The Court has federal question jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, Plaintiff did not state which federal law or right was allegedly violated.
Second, even if the Court liberally construed the Complaint to find federal question jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff has not provided any factual allegations that state a plausible claim for relief. Indeed, she has not provided any factual allegations, period. In other words, there is no who, what, when, or where.
Section 1983 is a federal law that allows an individual to bring a civil action for deprivation of their rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
V. Leave to Amend
If the district court determines that a pleading might be cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court evaluates whether to permit amendment by weighing "(1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint." W. Shoshone Nat'l Council v. Molini, 951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir. 1991). "Leave to amend need not be given if a complaint, as amended, is subject to dismissal." Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989).
To state a valid claim under § 1983, the plaintiff must allege she suffered a specific constitutional injury resulting from specific conduct of a state actor and show an affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). "A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights." Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998).
The Court will permit Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her Complaint. There does not appear to be any bad faith and, as no Defendant has been served, there is no prejudice or undue delay in allowing for amendment.
If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, she must write short, plain statements telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional right; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of that Defendant's conduct. See Goode, 423 U.S. at 371-72, 377. Plaintiff must also state how and why a defendant is a state actor pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
If Plaintiff fails to affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific injury suffered by Plaintiff, the allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Conclusory allegations that a Defendant has violated a constitutional right are not acceptable and will be dismissed.
Should she choose to amend, Plaintiff shall familiarize herself with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules for the District of Arizona, both of which can be found on the Court's web site at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff is advised that a Handbook for Self-Represented Litigants is available on the Court's website at: https://publicapps.azd.uscourts.gov/prose-survey/.
VI. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED
(1) Plaintiff's IFP Application is GRANTED. (Doc. 2.)
(2) Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order in compliance with the terms of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file a First Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, the Clerk of Court shall, without further notice, enter a judgment dismissing this case with prejudice.