Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02034/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02034-0/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

1

 The Complaint is captioned as one stating a cause of action for

“Capital punishment, violating laws, changing laws and or not

[maintaining] laws by code regulations.”

WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MICHAEL STAPLES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 06-2034 PHX MEA

)

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ECONOMIC SECURITY, ) 

)

Defendant. )

_____________________________ )

Plaintiff has consented to the exercise of magistrate

judge jurisdiction over this matter, including the entry of

final judgment. Defendant has not been served nor appeared in

this matter.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in this

Court, which was classified as a complaint alleging violations

of his civil rights,1 and also filed a motion to proceed before

the Court in forma pauperis. 

Subject to subsection (b), any court of the

United States may authorize the commencement,

prosecution or defense of any suit, action or

proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal

therein, without prepayment of fees or

security therefor, by a person who submits an

affidavit that includes a statement of all

Case 2:06-cv-02034-MEA Document 9 Filed 03/20/07 Page 1 of 5
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-

assets such prisoner possesses that the

person is unable to pay such fees or give

security therefor. Such affidavit shall

state the nature of the action, defense or

appeal and affiant’s belief that the person

is entitled to redress.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (1994 & Supp. 2006).

The Court must dismiss a complaint filed in tandem with

a petition to proceed in forma pauperis if it is satisfied that

the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted.” Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court may not dismiss

a case merely because it believes that the plaintiff will lose

on the merits, or on a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

motion for failure to state a claim. See Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989). The Court may exercise

its discretion to dismiss an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(d) if the action is “frivolous or malicious,” i.e., the

claims have no arguable basis in law or fact. See, e.g.,

Mayfield v. Collins, 918 F.2d 560, 561 (5th Cir. 1990). Under

the liberal rules applicable to pro se complaints, an action is

frivolous if the plaintiff cannot make a rational argument on

the law and facts in support of his claim. See Van Sickle v.

Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1434 (10th Cir. 1988); Wiggins v. New

Mexico State Supreme Court Clerk, 664 F.2d 812, 815 (10th Cir.

1981). Even pro se pleadings must contain a minimum level of

factual support and a plaintiff should not be allowed to proceed

in forma pauperis if his complaint is so lacking in specific

facts that the Court must invent a factual scenario not evident

from the face of the complaint. See Richmond v. Cagle, 920 F.

Case 2:06-cv-02034-MEA Document 9 Filed 03/20/07 Page 2 of 5
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-

Supp. 955, 957 (E.D. Wis. 1996). 

To state a section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must

allege facts establishing a “person,” acting under color of

state law, deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or

immunity secured by the United States Constitution. See, e.g.,

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S. Ct. 2250, 2254 (1988);

Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th

Cir. 1988). A state agency is, in particular circumstances, a

“person” who may be sued pursuant to section 1983; however, the

agency may only be sued for injunctive relief, rather than

monetary damages. See, e.g., Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 29,

112 S. Ct. 358, 364 (1991); Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945,

951 (9th Cir. 2004). Compare Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358,

365 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding a suit for prospective

injunctive relief, rather than monetary damages, is not barred

by sovereign immunity).

 Plaintiff’s complaint states: “DES [approval] of food

stamps of $11.00--capital punishment” and seeks $15 million in

damages “For regulations not followed and capital punishment and

be awarded food stamps”. The attachments to the complaint

indicate the Arizona Department of Economic Security approved

Plaintiff’s application for food stamps in the amount of $11.00

per month, beginning in September of 2006 through January of

2007. The complaint states: 

Special codes and regulations permits amount

of funds posted in the food stamp card for

SSI or income participants which established

those funds which are not over the limet.

(sic) Here on the form of [DES] they defy

Case 2:06-cv-02034-MEA Document 9 Filed 03/20/07 Page 3 of 5
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-

that rule which is capital punishment.

For $11.00 a month for food stamps is not the

set standard for income particapant. (sic)

and is below standard distrabution and

reasoning. And the indigent leval. Here I

only make $603.00 a month for disable which

by codes I should and do fit the criteria and

should be available for food stamp funds...

Docket No. 1, Attach.

The allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint do not

implicate Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights because

Plaintiff does not have a constitutionally-protected due

process, property, or other constitutional interest in receiving

a particular level of welfare benefits. See Ledford v.

Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 358 (7th Cir. 1997); Bernard v. United

Township High Sch. Dist. No. 30, 5 F.3d 1090, 1093 (7th Cir.

1993); Jackson v. Jackson, 857 F.2d 951 (4th Cir. 1988); Banks

v. Block, 700 F.2d 292, 296 (6th Cir. 1983). Compare Robidoux

v. Kitchel, 876 F. Supp. 575-82 (D. Vt. 1995). 

 The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and

unusual punishment does not apply in this context, i.e., to a

person who is not incarcerated by state. See, e.g., Ingraham v.

Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 664, 97 S. Ct. 1401, 1408-09 (1977); Lynch

v. Cannatella, 810 F. 2d 1363, 1376 (5th Cir. 1987).

Additionally, the Arizona Department of Economic Security is not

a “person” who may be sued pursuant to section 1983 for monetary

damages and, accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages

is frivolous and must be dismissed. See, e.g., Wolfe v.

Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 364-65 (9th Cir. 2004); Doe v. Lawrence

Case 2:06-cv-02034-MEA Document 9 Filed 03/20/07 Page 4 of 5
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

 In an unpublished opinion issued by another United States

District Court, alleging the plaintiff’s constitutional rights were

violated by the state’s reduction in his food stamp allotment, the

court concluded there was no jurisdictional basis for the suit.

Allmond v. Department of Family Servs., 2002 WL 32502337, at * 1 (E.D.

Va.).

-5-

Livermore Nat’l Lab., 131 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Plaintiff has met the income requirements of proceeding

in forma pauperis, however, the Court is within its discretion

in denying him in forma pauperis status and dismissing the

complaint. See O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir.

1990); Wiggins v. New Mexico State Supreme Court Clerk, 664 F.2d

812, 816 (10th Cir. 1981). Because the complaint has no

arguable basis in the law and finding that the complaint is,

therefore, frivolous, the complaint must be dismissed. See

Bennett v. State of Calif., 406 F.2d 36, 39 (9th Cir. 1969);

Spencer v. Doe, 139 F.3d 107, 111 (2d Cir. 1998).2

THEREFORE, it is ordered that Plaintiff’s

Motion/Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Docket No. 2] is

denied, and the Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to dismiss

the Complaint with prejudice.

DATED this 20th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02034-MEA Document 9 Filed 03/20/07 Page 5 of 5