Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02034/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02034-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Annamarie D. Reithmiller, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Electors for the State, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-2034-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On September 28, 2012, the Court issued the following Order:

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. Before the Court orders service of an in forma pauperis complaint,

the Court may screen the complaint. Specifically:

A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

Congress provided with respect to in forma pauperis cases that

a district court "shall dismiss the case at any time if the court

determines" that the "allegation of poverty is untrue" or that the

"action or appeal" is "frivolous or malicious," "fails to state a

claim on which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief

against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2). While much of section 1915 outlines how

prisoners can file proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e)

applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings, not just those filed

by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.

2000)("section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis

complaints"). "It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only

permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma

pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim." Id. Therefore,

this court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if it fails

to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious. 

Case 2:12-cv-02034-JAT Document 8 Filed 11/06/12 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 -

"[A] complaint, containing both factual allegations and legal

conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either

in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

(1989). Furthermore, "a finding of factual frivolousness is

appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the

irrational or wholly incredible, whether or not there are

judicially recognized facts available to contradict them."

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). "A case is

malicious if it was filed with the intention or desire to harm

another." Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.

2005). 

B. Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

A claim must be stated clearly enough to enable a defendant to

frame a responsive pleading. A complaint must contain "a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). "Each averment of a

pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct." Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(e)(1). A complaint having 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" may be

dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a). Sparling v. Hoffman

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

In order to assist litigants to understand the Rule 8(e)

requirements that averments "be simple, concise, and direct,"

Rule 84 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

samples in an Appendix of Forms, which are "intended to

indicate the simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules

contemplate." McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.

1996). An example is Form 9 (Complaint for Negligence): 

1. Allegation of jurisdiction

2. On June 1, 1936, in a public highway called Boylston Street

in Boston, Massachusetts, defendant negligently drove a motor

vehicle against plaintiff, who was then crossing said highway.

3. As a result plaintiff was thrown down and had his leg broken,

and was otherwise injured, was prevented from transacting his

business, suffered great pain of body and mind, and incurred

expenses for medical attention and hospitalization in the sum of

one thousand dollars.

4. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendant in

the sum of ____ dollars and costs. 

Id. "This complaint fully sets forth who is being sued, for what

relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide

discovery. It can be read in seconds and answered in minutes."

Id. In addition, to satisfy Rule 8, each claim must be stated in

a separate count. Bautista v. Los Angeles, 216 F.3d 837, 840-41

(9th Cir. 2000). 

Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358205, *2-*3 (D. Ariz. 2005).

In this case, Plaintiff’s initial filing, which she calls “motion for

declaratory orders and an interdict,” fails to meet the requirements of Rule 8.

It appears, although it is unclear, that Plaintiff is seeking to enjoin the electors

for the state of Arizona from casting a vote for President Obama because he

is not a natural born citizen. Plaintiff further appears to be bringing this action

Case 2:12-cv-02034-JAT Document 8 Filed 11/06/12 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 -

on behalf of herself and 649 other patients of a psychiatrist in Florida, whose

licence Plaintiff claims was fraudulent. The Court cannot determine how this

list of Plaintiffs is related to the claims against the electors of the state of

Arizona.

When a complaint fails to meet the requirements of Rule 8, and other

factors are present, the Court should grant leave to amend. Bonanno v.

Thomas, 309 F.2d 320, 322 (9th Cir. 1962). Although the Court is not

convinced that Plaintiff can cure the deficiencies in her original complaint, the

Court will nonetheless give Plaintiff ONE opportunity to amend the complaint.

Plaintiff must:

make clear [her] allegations in short, plain statements with each

claim for relief identified in separate sections. In the amended

complaint, Plaintiff must write out the rights [s]he believes

were violated, the name of the person who violated the right,

exactly what that individual did or failed to do, how the action

or inaction of that person is connected to the violation of

Plaintiff's rights, and what specific injury Plaintiff suffered

because of the other person's conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423

U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). Each claim of an alleged

violation must be set forth in a separate count. Any amended

complaint filed by Plaintiff must conform to the requirements of

Rules 8(a) and [(d)(1)] of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Kennedy, 2005 WL 3358205, *3 (D. Ariz. 2005).

Further, like the Plaintiff in Kennedy,

Plaintiff is warned that if [s]he elects to file an

amended complaint and if [s]he fails to comply with the

Court's instructions explained in this order, the action will

be dismissed pursuant to section 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and/or

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See

McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177 (affirming dismissal with prejudice

of prolix, argumentative, and redundant amended complaint that

did not comply with Rule 8(a)); Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins.

Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981)(affirming dismissal

of amended complaint that was "equally as verbose, confusing,

and conclusory as the initial complaint"); Corcoran v. Yorty, 347 F.2d 222, 223 (9th Cir. 1965)(affirming dismissal without

leave to amend second complaint that was "so verbose, confused

and redundant that its true substance, if any, [was] well

disguised"). 

Kennedy, 2005 WL 3358205, *3 (D. Ariz. 2005) (emphasis added).

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for declaratory orders and an

interdict (Doc. 1) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended

complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an

amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

Case 2:12-cv-02034-JAT Document 8 Filed 11/06/12 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

1

 See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a); Craig v. U.S., 413 F.2d 854, 856 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 396 U.S. 987 (1969); Molnar v. Nat’l Broadcasting Co., 231 F.2d 684, 686-87 (9th

Cir. 1956).

- 4 -

of dismissal, without prejudice, for failure to comply with a Court order.

Doc. 6.

On October 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Doc. 7. In this 18 page

amended complaint, Plaintiff still fails to meet Rule 8's pleading standard. First, she has

failed to name any Defendants. Instead she names “Electors of the State of Arizona.”

However, those names are ascertainable, and generally, the Federal courts do not permit

generic naming of Defendants.1

Second, and more importantly, Plaintiff fails to explain in any terms how the “Electors

of the State of Arizona” have harmed her. Though the Court is taking liberties with the

following summary, it appears Plaintiff is arguing and alleging that President Obama became

involved in her divorce proceeding in Florida (Doc. 7 at 3). Plaintiff further alleges that

President Obama’s involvement in her divorce proceeding violated his Oath of Office (Doc.

7 at 4). Thus, Plaintiff is now suing the Electors of the State of Arizona to enjoin them from

casting their votes for President Obama because, Plaintiff claims, this alleged violation of his

Oath of Office makes him ineligible to hold the office of the President (Doc. 7 at 4-5).

Finally, Plaintiff claims she is suing on behalf of a class of 620 people who all suffered this

same violation of President Obama’s Oath of Office.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet Rule 8's pleading standard. The Court

further finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the “Electors of the State of

Arizona” (which the Court has already found to be an improper Defendant). For these

reasons, the Court will dismiss this case. Finally, the Court also finds that Plaintiff’s

complaint in this case falls into the category of “the irrational or wholly incredible.” See

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (dismissal also appropriate when the facts

alleged are “clearly baseless,” “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and/or “delusional.”). Thus, dismissal

is also justified on this basis.

Case 2:12-cv-02034-JAT Document 8 Filed 11/06/12 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

- 5 -

Because the Court has already given Plaintiff leave to amend, and Plaintiff was unable

to cure the deficiencies in her pleading, the Court finds any further amendments would be

futile. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed, with prejudice, for the reasons stated

above, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(Doc. 3) is denied.

DATED this 6th day of November, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-02034-JAT Document 8 Filed 11/06/12 Page 5 of 5