Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-00804/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-00804-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Alejandro R. Garcia, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LaPaz Regional Hospital, 

Defendant.

No. CV17-0804-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

Plaintiff Alejandro R. Garcia filed a complaint on January 30, 2017 in LaPaz 

County Superior Court against LaPaz Regional Hospital. Defendant LaPaz Regional 

Hospital removed the case to this Court on March 16, 2017. Doc. 1. On March 17, 2017, 

Defendant filed a motion for screening and motion for stay. Doc. 3. The Court will 

dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. 

I. Legal Standard. 

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] pleading that 

states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). This short and plain statement 

“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. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 

F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 

(2007)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“The plausibility standard 

... asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully”). Legal 

conclusions couched as factual allegations are not given a presumption of truthfulness 

Case 2:17-cv-00804-DGC Document 7 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

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). Dismissal is appropriate where the 

complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory, lacks sufficient facts alleged under a 

cognizable legal theory, or contains allegations disclosing some absolute defense or bar 

to recovery. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1988); 

Weisbuch v. County of L.A., 119 F.3d 778, 783, n. 1 (9th Cir.1997). 

II. Plaintiff's Complaint. 

Plaintiff’s complaint consists of two paragraphs. He demands $103,300, and 

asserts that “urine was extracted from his body without a warrant and against his will.” 

Doc. 1-1 at 5. Plaintiff alleges “negligence, criminal liability, misconduct and unusual 

pain by staff constituting medical malpractice and injury[.]” Id. Plaintiff appears to be 

alleging a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Id. The complaint contains 

virtually no facts and fails to state a plausible claim for relief. The Court also notes that 

the complaint fails to identify the specific defendants being sued or the actions of those 

defendant that give rise to liability. 

III. Leave to Amend and Plaintiff's Obligations. 

In this circuit, “[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). The Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice and allow Plaintiff to 

file an amended complaint, consistent with this order, that properly states a claim for 

relief. Plaintiff shall have until April 14, 2017 to file an amended complaint. 

Plaintiff is advised that he must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District 

of Arizona (“Local Rules”), which may be obtained in the Clerk of Court's office. For 

purposes of the amended complaint, Plaintiff is directed to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint “must contain (1) a short and plain 

statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, ... (2) a short and plain statement of 

Case 2:17-cv-00804-DGC Document 7 Filed 03/27/17 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief 

sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). These pleading requirements shall be set forth in separate 

and discrete paragraphs. Rule 8(d) provides that each such paragraph “must be simple, 

concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). 

The “short and plain statement of the claim” required by Rule 8(a)(2) must not 

only designate a cause of action, but must also include enough factual allegations to 

render the claim plausible. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended 

complaint asserting constitutional violations by federal or state officials, his pleading 

should include a statement of the constitutional rights Plaintiff believes to have been 

violated, how each right was violated, how each defendant contributed to the violation, 

and what injury was caused by each alleged constitutional violation. Such factual 

allegations must provide enough information to “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant[s are] liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

If Plaintiff fails to prosecute this action or to comply with the rules or any Court 

order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir.1992) 

(holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se plaintiff's 

complaint for failing to comply with a court order). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendant’s motion for screening (Doc. 3) is granted.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice. 

3. Plaintiff shall have until April 14, 2017 to file an amended complaint. 

4. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action without further order of the 

Court if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by April 14, 2017. 

Dated this 24th day of March, 2017. 

Case 2:17-cv-00804-DGC Document 7 Filed 03/27/17 Page 3 of 3