Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02163/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02163-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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 

Darnell Lamont Futch, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

United States Department of Health and 

Human Services, et. al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV13-02163-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Pro se Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 

without prepaying fees or costs. Doc. 3. The Court will grant the motion. 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 (Doc. 1) will be dismissed. 

I. Legal Standard. 

In IFP proceedings, a district court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 

determines that ... the action ... fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted[.]” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of section 1915 concerns prisoner litigation, section 

1915(e) applies to all IFP proceedings. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n. 7 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (en banc). “Section 1915(e) (2)(B)(ii) ... allows a district court to dismiss[ ] 

sua sponte ... a complaint that fails to state a claim[.]” Id. at 1130. A district court 

dismissing under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) “should grant leave to amend even if no 

request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not 

possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Id. at 1127–29 (citations omitted). 

Case 2:13-cv-02163-DGC Document 6 Filed 11/15/13 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

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)). Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not given a presumption of 

truthfulness 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. 

The one-page complaint in this case names the United States Department of 

Health and Human Services, the Arizona Healthcare Cost Containment System, the 

Arizona Department of Economic Security, and the Arizona State Legislature as 

Defendants. Doc. 1. It contains no factual allegations; it merely quotes two state statutes 

and demands seven billion dollars. Id. The complaint fails to state a claim against any 

named defendant. 

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 that properly states a claim for relief. Plaintiff shall have until 

Friday, December 6, 2013 to file an amended complaint. If an amended complaint is 

not filed by that date, the Clerk is directed to terminate this action without further order. 

Case 2:13-cv-02163-DGC Document 6 Filed 11/15/13 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

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 

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. 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, 129 S.Ct. at 1149. 

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. Plaintiff’s request for IFP status (Doc. 3) is granted. 

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

3. Plaintiff shall have until December 6, 2013, to file an amended complaint. 

Case 2:13-cv-02163-DGC Document 6 Filed 11/15/13 Page 3 of 4
- 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. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action without further notice if 

Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by December 6, 2013. 

 Dated this 15th day of November, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-02163-DGC Document 6 Filed 11/15/13 Page 4 of 4