Opinion
CV 21-00324-TUC-SHR (JR)
01-04-2022
Deyoe R. Harris, Plaintiff, v. State of Arizona, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Honorable Jacqueline M. Rateau United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Deyoe R. Harris commenced this action by filing his original Complaint (Doc. 1) in forma pauperis on August 11, 2021. By Order dated December 1, 2021, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff had not alleged a federal basis for the Court's jurisdiction and did not state his claims in numbered paragraphs and therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend (Doc. 15). On December 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint (Doc. 16). Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of this Court, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Rateau for Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of the record, dismiss the Amended Complaint without leave to amend.
1. Amended Complaint
The Court is authorized to screen all in forma pauperis complaints and must dismiss an action if the plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, brings claims that are frivolous or malicious, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). As relevant here, this Court has limited jurisdiction and may dismiss the case if jurisdiction is lacking. Fiedler v Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78 (9th Cir. 1983). Rule 8(a) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure requires that plaintiffs provide a statement of the grounds for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) ("A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction").
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Governor of the State of Arizona "should have continued to disseminate the Federal Pandemic Relief money promised to all those who qualify in the most recent relief legislation" and that "these people owe me money and committed fraud and deserve prison." He also requests a hearing and that an investigation be conducted. Amended Complaint (Doc. 16), pp. 1- 2. However, even though previously instructed to provide a short and plain statement of the grounds for this Court's subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff has again failed to do so. As stated in the previous order, while the Court can empathize with Plaintiff about the frustrations he faces in pursuing relief, the Court is nevertheless bound by the dictates of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and must require that he allege a federal basis for the Court's jurisdiction over his claims. Because he has now twice failed to do so, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed.
In the Court's previous order, Plaintiff was additionally informed that Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[a] party must state its claims ... in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances." Plaintiff was instructed that, should he elect to file an amended complaint, it must comply with this requirement. The Amended Complaint remains unnumbered and fails to identify any grounds upon which the Court might base the relief Plaintiff seeks.
It is well established that "[a] pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment." Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). In addition to the instructions provided in the Court's previous dismissal order, Plaintiff was also provided a Notice To Pro-Se Non-Prisoner Parties Representing Themselves which, among other information, provided a list of resources and additional reminders to Plaintiff (Doc. 5). The notice also included instructions for Plaintiff to arrange for a meeting with an attorney at the Federal court Self-Service Clinic. It is apparent that Plaintiff either did not attend the clinic or did not follow any guidance that may have been provided. Thus, although Plaintiff was given the opportunity to address the deficiencies identified in the Complaint, those same deficiencies appear in the Amended Complaint. The Court will therefore recommend that the District Court dismiss the Amended Complaint without prejudice and without leave to amend.
II. Recommendation
Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after an independent review of the record, dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Doc. 16) without prejudice and without leave to amend.
This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. However, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. No. replies are permitted without leave of court. If any objections are filed, this action should be designated with case numbers: CV 21-00324-TUC-SHR. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Dated this 4th day of January, 2022.