Opinion
CV-22-1313-PHX-ESW
10-26-2022
Aneta Eberhart Sproles, Plaintiff, v. Sandy Gonzalez, et. al. Defendants.
HONORABLE STEPHEN M. McNAMEE, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On August 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). In a September 15, 2022 Order, the Court allowed Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis and screened Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Doc. 10). The Court noted that the Complaint fails to make allegations that suggest any federal claims or any state claims over which this Court would have jurisdiction. (Id. at 4). The Court ordered Plaintiff to correct the noted deficiencies by filing a First Amended Complaint and explained that the failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the action. (Id. at 4-5). On September 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 12). For the reasons discussed below, it is recommended that the Court dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
With respect to in forma pauperis proceedings, the Court must dismiss such action at any time if it determines that:
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal -
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“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.”).
In order to state a claim for relief, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint must include: (i) “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction;” (ii) “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief;” and (iii) “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). The short and plain statement for relief “need not contain detailed factual allegations; rather, it must plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Clemens v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and “conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are not sufficient,” Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). Further, “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b) (“A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”). Where a complaint contains the factual elements of a cause, but those elements are scattered throughout the complaint without any meaningful organization, the complaint does not set forth a “short and plain statement of the claim” for purposes of Rule 8. Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988).
Here, the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) is completed on a fillable form. The section of the form pertaining to the basis for federal court jurisdiction is left blank. (Id. at 3-4). The First Amended Complaint states only the following in the “Statement of Claim” section: “Derrick Eberhart w/ the other Defendants beat me, stole my property and sold it, made false police reports to have me falsely arrested and later evicted, made several attempts on my life, stole money to bully me.” (Id. at 4). Like the original Complaint, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint fails to make allegations that suggest any federal claims or any state claims over which this Court would have jurisdiction. A “liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Jones v. Baldinado, No. CV 20-01371-PHX-MTL (JZB), 2020 WL 5545399 at *5 (D. Ariz. Sept. 16, 2020) (citing Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court direct the Clerk of Court to terminate this case.
This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See United States v. Reyna Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).