Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01538/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01538-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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 

Janice Walker,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

City of Phoenix, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV 11-01538-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendant1 City of Phoenix’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 45). 

Defendant asserts Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with the federal pleading 

standards and fails to state a plausible claim for relief. To state a claim for relief under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a plaintiff must make “‘a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of 

what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). This “short and plain statement” must also 

be “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). A claim is 

plausible if it contains “[f]actual allegations [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, and to permit a reasonable inference that 

the defendant is liable for the conduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Threadbare 

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do 

not suffice.” Id. Rather, the plaintiff must at least “allege sufficient facts to state the 

elements of [the relevant] claim.” Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 

 

1

 The City of Phoenix is the only remaining defendant. (See Doc. 40.) 

Case 2:11-cv-01538-NVW Document 51 Filed 08/20/12 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 

1116, 1122 (9th Cir. 2008). Even where a complaint has the factual elements of a cause 

of action present but scattered throughout the complaint and not organized into a “short 

and plain statement of the claim,” it may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a). 

Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Plaintiff has failed to satisfy these pleading requirements. In her third amended 

complaint, Plaintiff continues to set forth her allegations in a rambling and incoherent 

manner that does not reasonably put Defendant on notice of the claims against it. 

Plaintiff has not listed separate claims for relief or clearly identified the legal theories or 

causes of action entitling her to relief. Defendant’s motion to dismiss will therefore be 

granted. 

Although leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), “[l]eave need not be granted where the amendment of the complaint 

would cause the opposing party undue prejudice ... or creates undue delay.” Ascon 

Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court’s 

discretion to deny leave to amend a complaint is “especially broad” where the plaintiff 

already has had one or more opportunities to amend his complaint. Id. at 1161. “Leave to 

amend need not be given if a complaint, as amended, is subject to dismissal.” Moore v. 

Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). “Futility of amendment 

can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend.” Bonin v. Calderon, 59 

F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff has already been given three opportunities to 

amend her complaint, and there is no basis for concluding that further amendment will 

correct the continuing deficiencies in her pleadings. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Third 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 38) will be dismissed with prejudice. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal File (Doc. 48) does not show sufficient cause to warrant 

this matter being sealed and will be denied. Although she asks the court to seal “all 

Case 2:11-cv-01538-NVW Document 51 Filed 08/20/12 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 

private medical records and doctor letters of plaintiff” (id. at 1), no such records or letters 

are in the record. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant City of Phoenix’s Motion to 

Dismiss (Doc. 45) is granted with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal File (Doc. 48) is 

denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment in favor of Defendant 

and against Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff take nothing. The Clerk shall terminate this 

action. 

Dated this 20th day of August, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-01538-NVW Document 51 Filed 08/20/12 Page 3 of 3