Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02236/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02236-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 31:3731 Fraud

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The Shannon Starr Bryan Children's Trust,

by Keith McPhalen, Trustee; and Shannon

Starr Bryan,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Edward Palos, et al,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2236-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently, before the Court is Plaintiffs', the Shannon Starr Bryan Children's Trust,

by Keith McPhalen, Trustee and Shannon Starr Byran ("Plaintiffs"), Motion to Proceed in

forma pauperis. (Dkt.#3). Having reviewed the Motion, the Court issues the following

Order.

Plaintiffs' Motion to proceed in forma pauperis demonstrates that Plaintiffs do not

possess the means to pay the filing fee in this case. Accordingly, the Court will grant the

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

However, the Motion to proceed in forma pauperis requires the Court to screen the

Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a) and (e)(2). In screening a complaint filed with a

request to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss the complaint at any time if it

is "frivolous or malicious" or if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),(ii). 

Case 2:06-cv-02236-MHM Document 5 Filed 10/16/06 Page 1 of 3
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 -

Plaintiffs' Complaint which has over 25 named defendant individuals and entities,

states that jurisdiction in this Court is proper based upon diversity. Specifically, the

Complaint states "[t]his Court has proper jurisdiction because there is vast diversity of

residency in different states with respect to several defendants, potential plaintiffs and key

witnesses." (Complaint, Dkt.#1). Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that all of the Defendants

"have committed various frauds upon the Plaintiff(s) and various courts and court officials

in order to misuse the judicial system to enrich themselves and/or retaliate against Plaintiff(s)

for asserting their legal rights against Defendant(s)." (Id.). There are no other substantive

allegations in the Complaint. The Court finds that such broad and bare allegations are

insufficient to state a claim. First, it is not clear whether jurisdiction in this Court is proper

as Plaintiffs state only that there is diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Plaintiffs do not detail how there is complete diversity between the Plaintiffs and Defendants

in this case. See Lee v. American Nat. Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating

that to bring diversity case in federal court against multiple defendants, each plaintiff must

be diverse from each defendant) (citations omitted). Moreover, Plaintiffs make no allegation

that the amount in controversy is over $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Without sufficient

statements demonstrating that jurisdiction is appropriate, this court will decline to exercise

jurisdiction over this matter. Second, Plaintiffs allege only in very broad terms that each of

the named Defendants has engaged in fraud against Plaintiffs. Such a broad allegation is not

sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement of Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure which requires that a complaint contain a "short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Moreover, Rule 8(e)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. states

that "[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct." Plaintiffs'

Complaint, while apparently alleging a claim based upon fraud fails to set forth sufficient

factual allegations in support of this claim. Finally, it is also relevant to note that to

sufficiently plead a claim based upon fraud it must be plead with particularity. Fed.R.Civ.P.

9(b). 

Case 2:06-cv-02236-MHM Document 5 Filed 10/16/06 Page 2 of 3
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 -

Thus, in the light of the above-mentioned deficiencies in Plaintiffs' Complaint the

Court will dismiss with leave to amend as it finds that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted and failed to sufficiently invoke this Court's jurisdiction.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Plaintiffs' Motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, without prepayment of costs or fees or the necessity of giving security therefore.

Plaintiffs shall be responsible for service by waiver or of the summons and complaint.

(Dkt.#3). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk's office to withhold providing

Plaintiffs with the service packet until the Court has screened Plaintiffs' amended complaint,

should they choose to file one. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice with

leave to amend. Plaintiffs shall have 20 days from the date this Order is filed in which to file

an amended complaint. The amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety

and may not incorporate any part of the original complaint by reference. Any amended

complaint submitted by Plaintiffs should be clearly designated as such on the face of the

document.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment

of dismissal without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiffs, if Plaintiffs fail to

timely file an amended complaint within 20 days from the date this Order is filed. 

DATED this 11th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-02236-MHM Document 5 Filed 10/16/06 Page 3 of 3