Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01680/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01680-2/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

Joseph C. Primous, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Phoenix Police Department,

Hiring

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1680-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a document without a title (Dkt. #9) that appears to be directed at

the Court’s order of September 25, 2007 (Dkt. #8). Plaintiff appears to address the Court’s

finding that his previous filing, which the Court construed as a motion to amend, was moot.

Dkt. #8. Plaintiff’s document continues to allege wrongful conduct on the part of the City

of Phoenix Police Department, but fails to specify the nature, timing, location, or parties

involved in the conduct. Plaintiff’s document also continues to fail to identify any basis for

this Court’s jurisdiction, and appears explicitly to assert that Plaintiff is not making a claim

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as the Court had previously speculated. See

Dkt. #4.

The Court can only construe Plaintiff’s document as a motion for reconsideration of

the Court’s order of September 25, 2007 (Dkt. #8). Plaintiff’s document provides no basis

for reconsideration of that order and therefore will be denied.

The Court’s previous order granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. Dkt. #4.

Case 2:07-cv-01680-DGC Document 10 Filed 10/12/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

The Court advised Plaintiff that his amended complaint must specify the basis for this

Court’s jurisdiction. Id. at 3. The Court’s order gave Plaintiff until September 28, 2007, to

file an amended complaint. Id. That deadline was extended to October 5, 2007, in the

Court’s order of September 25, 2007. Dkt. #8 at 2.

The Court will give Plaintiff one final opportunity to file an amended complaint that

properly invokes the Court’s jurisdiction. The amended complaint shall be filed on or before

October 26, 2007. 

As the Court explained in its prior order, Plaintiff 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 “shall contain (1) a short and

plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, . . . (2) a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a

demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8(e)

provides that “[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(e)(1). The forms contained in the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

– which include forms regarding jurisdictional statements and sample complaints on various

causes of action – “are sufficient under the rules and are intended to indicate the simplicity

and brevity of statement which the rules contemplate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 84.

Plaintiff is advised that vague references to wrongdoing on the part of Defendant are

not sufficient to satisfy even the liberal notice pleading requirements of Rule 8. The

amended complaint must give Defendant “fair notice of what [Plaintiff’s] claim is and the

grounds upon which it is based.” Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005).

This includes some factual basis for the claim and the legal theory supporting the claim. See

id. The amended complaint must also provide a clear statement of this Court’s jurisdiction.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1).

Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to prosecute this action or comply with the

Case 2:07-cv-01680-DGC Document 10 Filed 10/12/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

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 (9th Cir.1992).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s filing of October 1, 2007 (Dkt. #9), which the Court construes as a

motion for reconsideration, is denied.

2. Plaintiff shall have a final opportunity, until October 26, 2007, to file an

amended complaint.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action without further notice if Plaintiff

fails to comply with this deadline.

DATED this 12th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01680-DGC Document 10 Filed 10/12/07 Page 3 of 3