Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08093/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08093-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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 Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a “demand for evidentiary hearing and order

to show cause,” (Doc. 21) wherein Plaintiff argues that he should be “afforded the

opportunity to present his evidence.” Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any basis for

such an evidentiary hearing or order to show cause. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s demand for

evidentiary hearing and order to show cause will be denied. In the future, if Plaintiff wants

an oral argument on any motions pending before the Court, he must request oral argument

in his motion or in his response to Defendants’ motion. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Luther Jones Junior, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Mohave County; Carol Meier, Mohave

County Recorder, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-8093-PCT-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court are: Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment for Writ of

Execution (Docs. 8 and 11); Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14); and

Plaintiff’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and Order to Show Cause (Doc. 21). The Motions

are fully briefed and the Court now rules on the Motions.1

I. Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed because it “either

Case 3:11-cv-08093-JAT Document 25 Filed 01/11/12 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 -

asserts a legal theory that is not legally cognizable or because the factual allegations do not

show a plausible entitlement to relief under any cognizable legal theory.” (Doc. 14 at 4). 

A. Legal Standard

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim, a complaint must meet

the requirements of Rule 8. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” so that the defendant has “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) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

Although a complaint attacked for failure to state a claim does not need detailed

factual allegations, the pleader’s obligation to provide the grounds for relief requires “more

than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action

will not do.” Id. (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The factual

allegations of the complaint must be sufficient to raise a right to relief above a speculative

level. Id. 

Rule 8’s pleading standard demands more than “an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, __, 129 S. Ct. 1937,

1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A complaint that offers nothing more than

blanket assertions will not suffice. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain

sufficient factual matter, which, if accepted as true, states a claim to relief that is “plausible

on its face.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Facial plausibility exists if the pleader pleads factual

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for

the misconduct alleged. Id. Plausibility does not equal “probability,” but plausibility

requires more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. “Where a

complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent’ with a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short

of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court must construe

his Complaint liberally, even when evaluating it under the Iqbal standard. Johnson v. Lucent

Technologies Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011).

Case 3:11-cv-08093-JAT Document 25 Filed 01/11/12 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 -

In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must construe the facts

alleged in a complaint in the light most favorable to the drafter of the complaint and must

accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428,

435 (9th Cir. 2000). Nonetheless, the Court does not have to accept as true a legal

conclusion couched as a factual allegation. Papasan, 478 U.S. at 286.

B. Analysis

1. Failure to Provide a Short, Plain Statement of the Claim as

Required by Rule 8.

The Complaint fails to meet the pleading standard set forth in Rule 8 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a plaintiff to “plead a short and plain statement of

the elements of his or her claim, identifying the transaction or occurrence giving rise to the

claim and the elements of the prima facie case.” Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d

837, 840 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, Rule 8 requires each allegation of a complaint to be

“simple, concise, and direct.” FED.R.CIV.P. 8(d)(1). This requirement “applies to good

claims as well as bad, and is the basis for dismissal independent of Rule 12(b)(6).” McHenry

v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). “Something labeled a complaint but written

more as a press release, prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and

clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential

functions of a complaint.” Id. at 1180. “Prolix, confusing complaints . . . impose unfair

burdens on litigants and judges.” Id. at 1179. Here, the Complaint fails to meet the Rule 8

pleading requirements. 

The Complaint fails to provide a factual basis for any of Plaintiff’s claims. In his

Complaint, Plaintiff lists violations of: Article III, section 2 of the United States Constitution,

28 U.S.C. sections 1333, 1337, 2461, and 2463, and Uniform Commercial Code § 1-103.

Although Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have violated the aforementioned federal statutes,

the Uniform Commercial Code, and the United States Constitution, Plaintiff has failed to

provide any factual basis alleging the reasons he is suing Defendants. Due to this lack of

factual basis, Plaintiff has not met Rule 8’s requirements to connect Defendants’ allegedly

Case 3:11-cv-08093-JAT Document 25 Filed 01/11/12 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 -

wrongful actions with the list of federal statutes, portions of the Uniform Commercial Code,

and case law provided in his Complaint. See, e.g., Noatak v. Hoffman, 896 F.2d 1157, 1166

(9th Cir. 1990) (Kozinski, J. dissenting) (majority opinion rev’d 501 U.S. 775 (1991) (“To

state a federal claim, it is not enough to invoke a constitutional provision or to come up with

a catalogue of federal statutes allegedly implicated. Rather, as the Supreme Court has

repeatedly admonished, it is necessary to state a claim that is substantial.”). 

The closest Plaintiff comes to providing notice to Defendants of the factual basis of

his claims is his allegation that Defendant Carol Meier, Mohave County Recorder, failed to

record “UCC1 Liens, Maritime Liens and Judgments in Nihil Dicit,” which is the “cause of

this affidavit of complaint.” (Doc. 1-1 at 3). The remedy Plaintiff seeks in his Complaint

is “ a Writ of Execution to enforce the Judgment in Nihil Dicit and to include an arrest in

Rem of Mohave County Recorder Carol Meier’s Bond.” (Doc. 1-1 at 7). Based on these

allegations, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 

Accordingly, because the Complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of

each claim showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief and lacks the simple, concise and direct

allegations required by Rule 8, Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed. 

II. LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff has requested leave to amend. (Doc. 1-1 at 2). In this case, Plaintiff has not

amended the Complaint as a matter of right pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on September 22, 2011 (Doc. 14). 

Because the 21-day time frame to file an amendment following a motion to dismiss

has expired, Plaintiff has lost the right to amend the Complaint once as a matter of course.

FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a)(1). However, the Ninth Circuit has instructed district courts to grant

leave to amend, sua sponte, when dismissing a case for failure to state a claim, “unless the

court determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegations of other

facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Doe v. United States,

58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)). There is a “longstanding rule that ‘[l]eave to amend

should be granted if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect.’” Id.

Case 3:11-cv-08093-JAT Document 25 Filed 01/11/12 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 both Motions for Summary Judgment for Writ of Execution, Plaintiff requests

an “Order for Writ of Execution for the Judgment in Nihil Dicit including an arrest in Rem

of Mohave County Recorder Carol Meier’s Bond.” This is duplicative of the relief Plaintiff

seeks in his Complaint and Plaintiff again fails to state any basis setting forth his entitlement

to such an Order. 

- 5 -

at 1129 (quoting Balistreri v. Pac. Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1990)).

Plaintiff will be given a reasonable opportunity, if he so chooses, to amend the

Complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in this Order, and to provide Defendants with

notice of the factual basis of his claims in short plain statements in the manner required by

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court will grant the pending Motion to Dismiss

without prejudice, and will permit Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is

granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint no later

than 21 days from the date of this Order. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint

within 21 days, then the Clerk of the Court shall, without further Court order, dismiss this

case with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment for

Writ of Execution (Docs. 8 and 11) are denied as moot.2

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and

Order to Show Cause (Doc. 21) is denied. 

DATED this 11th day of January, 2012.

Case 3:11-cv-08093-JAT Document 25 Filed 01/11/12 Page 5 of 5