Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01941/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01941-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rev. Noel T. Benoist, D.D. , 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph and Mary Hartono; Southwest

Financial Consultant; La Siesta Mobile

Home and RV Park; “Bud” and Ardeth

Nefzger; Current Park Manager (name

unknown); and Jane and John Does as well

as Jane and John Doe Corporations and

other intities 1through 100 as discovered

and identified, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1941-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court

Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 3), which will be granted. The Court will screen

Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) before it is allowed to be served.

Pursuant to that screening Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

I. Screening Complaint Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

A. Legal Standards

1. 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

Case 2:10-cv-01941-GMS Document 4 Filed 10/04/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

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 § 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). “It

is also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an

in forma pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious. If the

Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se

litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before the dismissal of the action.

See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

The Court should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type

of advice “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v.

Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n. 13 (declining to decide

whether the court was required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff’s Complaint

will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend because, although it

appears unlikely, it may be possible for Plaintiff to assert claims that are appropriately

brought in federal court. 

II. The Complaint

In his Complaint, Plaintiff sues Joseph Hartono, Mary Hartono, Southwest Financial

Consultant, La Siesta Mobile Home and RV Park, “Bud” Nefzger, Ardeth Nefzger, and

Unknown Parties. The gist of Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to be that the owners, property

management company, and former and current property managers of the mobile home park

in which he lives are unfair and in discriminatory in their management and enforcement of

putative rules governing the operations of the park. Plaintiff’s Complaint apparently assumes

that the owners and operators of his mobile home park are acting under the color of state law.

It further assumes that the rules of the mobile home park are the equivalent of municipal

regulations. Plaintiff is incorrect in both respects. Further, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not

set forth with any degree of particularity what type of harm he alleges he suffered due to this

Case 2:10-cv-01941-GMS Document 4 Filed 10/04/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

unfair enforcement. As a result, if Plaintiff has any legal recourse against the owners and

operators of his mobile home park, it is not in federal court.

III. Failure to State a Claim

A. Jurisdiction

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and limitations on the court’s jurisdiction

must neither be disregarded or evaded. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. V. Kroger, 437 U.S.

365, 374 (1978). The Court is obligated to determine sua sponte whether it has subject

matter jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). See

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”)

Plaintiff’s Complaint apparently bases its claim to federal jurisdiction on the civil

rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute grants relief to Plaintiffs for actions by any

person “who, under color of any” state law deprives the Plaintiff of a constitutional right.

To have acted under the color of state law, however, the defendants must have “exercised

power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is

clothed with the authority of state law.” Forbes v. Rhode Island Broth. Of Correctional

Officers, 923 F. Supp. 315 (D.R.I. 1996). Thus, the Plaintiff must show in this case that the

Defendants were agents of the state, meaning they acted on behalf of the state, in depriving

him of his constitutional rights. This Plaintiff has not done so. The Complaint only credibly

alleges that the Defendants were acting on their own behalf or on behalf of their private RV

park, and not on behalf of or with the authority of any state entity in defrauding Plaintiff.

Thus, the Complaint has not adequately alleged any basis to conclude that a federal court

may decide Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff’s claim fails to identify any other federal statute on

which he bases his claim.

Nor does Plaintiff’s Complaint suggest that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over

his claims against the Defendants. A review of the Complaint suggests that Plaintiff and at

least some of the Defendants share the same state of domicile. Nor is there any evidence that

Plaintiff seeks damages in the jurisdictional amount. Thus, diversity jurisdiction also does

Case 2:10-cv-01941-GMS Document 4 Filed 10/04/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

not appear to provide a basis for Plaintiff’s claims to be brought against the Defendants in

federal court. Thus, Plaintiff must amend his Complaint to assert a basis for federal

jurisdiction or seek to bring his claims against Defendants in another court. 

IV. Leave To Amend

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state

a claim. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint to cure the

deficiencies outlined above. Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that

it is the “First Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or

rewritten in its entirety and may not incorporate any part of the original Complaint by

reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. Should Plaintiff fail to file a First

Amended Complaint within 30 days, the Clerk may dismiss this action without prejudice and

without further notice from the Court. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District

Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 3) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) Plaintiff’s

Complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8, with leave to file an Amended

Complaint by November 3, 2010.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects not to file an Amended

Complaint by November 3, 2010, the Clerk shall dismiss this action without further Order

of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects to file an Amended Complaint,

the Complaint may not be served until and unless the Court screens the Amended Complaint

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

DATED this 4th day of October, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01941-GMS Document 4 Filed 10/04/10 Page 4 of 4