Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08142/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08142-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ernest Bishop,

Plaintiff,

v. 

City of Bullhead City, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-16-08142-PCT-ESW

ORDER 

At issue is pro se Plaintiff Ernest Bishop’s Application to Proceed in District

Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). The Court finds that Plaintiff does not 

have sufficient means to pay the Court’s fees and will grant the Application. However, 

as set forth below, upon screening Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2), the Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the pleading requirements of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and fails to state a cause of action. The Court 

therefore dismisses the Complaint (Doc. 1) without prejudice and grants Plaintiff leave to 

file a First Amended Complaint consistent with the findings of the Court set forth herein.

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Statutory Screening of In Forma Pauperis Complaint Pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised 

claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

Case 3:16-cv-08142-ESW Document 9 Filed 08/29/16 Page 1 of 8
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

relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). A pleading must contain a “short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it 

demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a 

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. “[A] 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 

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

misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 

relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its 

judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific 

factual allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess 

whether there are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681.

But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, 

courts must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 

342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se litigant] ‘must be held to less 

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)).

If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 

facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 

of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). “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. at 1127.

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Pleading in Federal Court

Unlike state courts, federal courts only have jurisdiction over a limited number of

cases, and those cases typically involve either a controversy between citizens of different

- 2 -

Case 3:16-cv-08142-ESW Document 9 Filed 08/29/16 Page 2 of 8
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

states (“diversity jurisdiction”) or a question of federal law (“federal question

jurisdiction”). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The United States Supreme Court has stated 

that a federal court must not disregard or evade the limits on its subject matter

jurisdiction. Owen Equip. & Erections Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). Thus, a

federal court is obligated to inquire into its subject matter jurisdiction in each case and to

dismiss a case when subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,

372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

II. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s Complaint form names Bullhead City as a Defendant. Plaintiff attaches 

to the form a series of sworn letters. Plaintiff alleges in the first letter (Doc. 1 at 2-5) that 

he has been paying rent for seven years on a “dead man house” in Bullhead City and 

wants his money back. Plaintiff alleges that he is being threatened by family, has HIV, 

and wants money from this lawsuit to go to his children. Plaintiff alleges that Bullhead 

City has “close the college on me where I can’t use computer today closes pain clinic 

where I can’t get my pain pills for my H.I.V. and neck and back pain, shout [sic] down 

computer at Southwest Behavior where I can’t seem [sic] out Email to any F.B.I., D.E.A. 

home Land sercuity [sic] or put in any other complaints against Bullhead City AZ.” In 

the second sworn letter attached to the Complaint form (Doc. 1 at 6-9), Plaintiff alleges 

that Bridget Wicks, a Nurse Practitioner at the Guidance Center in Flagstaff, Arizona, 

conducted an STD test on Plaintiff’s blood despite his statement that he did not want to 

be tested. He alleges that Ms. Wicks violated his civil rights in doing so. Plaintiff further 

alleges that people are harassing him by saying he has HIV. In the third sworn letter 

(Doc. 1 at 9), Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel. In the fourth unsworn letter 

(Doc. 1 at 10), Plaintiff alleges that an order of protection has been issued against

Plaintiff at his address that indicates Plaintiff is a threat. Plaintiff asserts that the order 

means he can be killed by the police, and Plaintiff has notified the CIA, FBI, state and 

local authorities of the civil violation and crimes perpetrated against him. In the fifth 

unsworn document dated June 3, 2016 attached to the Complaint form (Doc. 1 at 11-12), 

- 3 -

Case 3:16-cv-08142-ESW Document 9 Filed 08/29/16 Page 3 of 8
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 states that an order of protection was served against him at his home in Bullhead

City. The police required him to pack his belongings and leave. Finally, Plaintiff has 

attached multiple documents from Sonora Quest Laboratories, a letter from the National 

Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a letter from the Arizona 

Department of Health Services, and copies of court papers from the Bullhead City 

Municipal Court in different case numbers (Doc. 1 at 13-22).

Liberally construing the disjointed information presented to the Court, the Court 

assumes that Plaintiff attempts to bring a claim against Bullhead City under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 for a violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights. To prevail in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, a 

plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendant (2) under color of state law (3) deprived 

him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. 

City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, 

a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury as a result of the conduct of a 

particular defendant, and he must allege an affirmative link between the injury and the 

conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 

Determining whether an entity is subject to suit under § 1983 is the “same question posed 

in cases arising under the Fourteenth Amendment: is the alleged infringement of federal 

rights fairly attributable to the [government]?” Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. 

Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838 

(1982)). For a court to answer this question in the affirmative, a plaintiff must show that 

two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation to the plaintiff by the entity “must result 

from a governmental policy,” and (2) “the party charged with the deprivation must be a 

person who may fairly be said to be a [governmental] actor.” Id. Municipalities and 

other local governmental entities may be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the acts of their 

officials only if a plaintiff can prove that the constitutional deprivation was the result of a 

custom or policy of the governmental entity. Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 

658, 690-691 (1978). A local government cannot be held liable for the acts of its 

- 4 -

Case 3:16-cv-08142-ESW Document 9 Filed 08/29/16 Page 4 of 8
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

employees under the theory of respondeat superior. Bd. Of County Comm’rs of Bryan 

County Okla. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). Simply because a municipality 

employs a wrong-doing official does not create liability on behalf of the municipality.

Here, the allegations in the Complaint do not meet the requirements of § 1983.

The Complaint contains no allegations that the procedures used by Ms. Wicks are part of 

a governmental policy. Nor is sufficient information alleged for the Court to conclude 

that Ms. Wicks is a governmental actor. Finally, Plaintiff does not indicate what policy 

or custom Bullhead City has adopted and in what way Bullhead City has deprived

Plaintiff of his civil rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to allege a state action sufficient 

to raise a § 1983 claim. See Sutton, 192 F. 3d at 836-43.

The Court cannot discern any other federal claim based on Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

The Court also does not find that the Complaint alleges any state law claim relying on

diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff has not alleged that his claim involves a controversy 

between citizens of different states. Rather, he only alleges that he lives in Arizona and

that the incidents took place in Arizona.

In conclusion, Plaintiff’s claim fails because he does not allege facts sufficient for 

the Court to find that it has subject matter jurisdiction over his claim. Nor has Plaintiff 

stated a claim against the named Defendant for which relief may be granted. Therefore, 

the Complaint will be dismissed.

III. LEAVE TO AMEND

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a 

first amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. Plaintiff must clearly 

designate on the face of the document that it is the “First Amended Complaint.”

A first amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 

F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat an original 

complaint as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised 

- 5 -

Case 3:16-cv-08142-ESW Document 9 Filed 08/29/16 Page 5 of 8
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

in the original complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without 

prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). If Plaintiff files an amended 

complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements telling the Court: (1) the 

constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of the Defendant who 

violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to do; (4) how the action 

or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional 

right; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of that Defendant’s conduct. 

See Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 377. Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person or entity he 

names as a Defendant. If Plaintiff fails to affirmatively link the conduct of each named 

Defendant with the specific injury suffered by Plaintiff, the allegations against that 

Defendant will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Conclusory allegations that a 

Defendant or group of Defendants has violated a constitutional right are not acceptable 

and will be dismissed.

Plaintiff must also allege subject matter jurisdiction by either showing his claim

involves a controversy between citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000, or a question of federal law, identifying the specific claim and what 

statute applies, if any. Plaintiff may only amend his Complaint to allege a § 1983 claim if 

he can allege facts showing state action.

IV. POSSIBLE DISMISSAL

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, the Court 

may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (a 

district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the Court).

V. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel. There is no constitutional right to 

the appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 

F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991); Ivey v. Bd of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 

269 (9th Cir. 1982). “However, a court may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint 

- 6 -

Case 3:16-cv-08142-ESW Document 9 Filed 08/29/16 Page 6 of 8
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

counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer v. Valdez, 

560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Agyeman v. Coors. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 

1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)). “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ 

exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability 

of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 

issues involved.’” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 

954 (9th Cir. 1983)). See also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 

“Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.”

Palmer, 560 F3.d at 970 (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 

1986)).

Having considered both elements, Plaintiff has not shown that exceptional 

circumstances are present that would require the appointment of counsel in this case. The 

Court will deny the Motion to Appoint Counsel. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a 

likelihood of success on the merits, nor is he unable to present his arguments to the Court.

VI. CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court 

Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed 

with permission to file a First Amended Complaint no later than September 25, 2016.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not file a First Amended 

Complaint by September 25, 2016, the Clerk shall dismiss this action with prejudice 

without further Order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects to file a First Amended 

Complaint, he shall not serve it on Defendant until and unless the Court screens the First 

Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If and when the Court gives 

Plaintiff leave to serve a First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff shall be responsible for 

service and may do so by request for waiver under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

- 7 -

Case 3:16-cv-08142-ESW Document 9 Filed 08/29/16 Page 7 of 8
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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel 

contained in his Complaint. 

Dated this 26th day of August, 2016. 

- 8 - 

Case 3:16-cv-08142-ESW Document 9 Filed 08/29/16 Page 8 of 8