Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01381/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01381-0/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

Chester Marks, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Labor Ready Southwest, Inc.; Robert

Derway, 

Defendants. _________________________________

Chester Marks,

Plaintiff,

v.

Labor Ready Southwest, Inc.; Roy Eustey,

Defendants. _________________________________

Chester Marks,

Plaintiff,

Labor Ready Southwest, Inc.; John

Derose,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 08-1380-PHX-JAT (lead)

CV 08-1381-PHX-JAT (cons)

CV 08-1382-PHX-JAT (cons)

ORDER

On July 28, 2008, Plaintiff filed three lawsuits. Each names Labor Ready Southwest,

Inc. as a Defendant. Then, each action adds a different individual Defendant. Other than

changing the individual Defendant’s name, the three complaints are identical. Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 42 provides: “If actions before the court involve a common question of

Case 2:08-cv-01381-JAT Document 5 Filed 08/07/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

law or fact, the court may: ...(b) consolidate the actions.” The Court finds this cases to

involve common questions of law and fact and will consolidate all three actions.

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

Court has concluded that Plaintiff's complaint should be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2) before it is allowed to be served. Therefore, the court will do so in this order.

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. 

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

Further, “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.”

Noatak v. Hoffman, 896 F.2d 1157, 1166 (9th Cir. 1990) (Kozinski, J. dissenting) (majority

opinion rev’d 501 U.S. 775 (1991)); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955,

1965 n.3 (2007).

In this case, Plaintiff catalogues a list of federal theories, specifically, the Complaint

states:

Count One: Plaintiff’s fundamental constitutional rights have been violated

under the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution; Count two:

Plaintiff’s fundamental constitutional rights are protected under the fourteenth

amendment of the United States Constitution from capricious and arbitrary

action; Count three: Plaintiff’s fundamental constitutional rights are protected

under the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution from

unhidden disclosures of evidence: Count four: Plaintiff’s fundamental

constitutional rights are protected under the fourteenth amendment of the

United States Constitution from fabricated allegations against him by

Defendants and other daily labor ready workers; Count five: Plaintiff’s

fundamental constitutional rights are protected under the fourteenth

amendment of the United States Constitution to obtain Labor Ready

Southwest, Inc. security video for the purpose of proving his innocent [sic] in

Case 2:08-cv-01381-JAT Document 5 Filed 08/07/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

the court of law; Count Six: Plaintiff’s fundamental constitutional rights are

protected under the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution

from being subjected to financial burden, stress, mental anguish, illegal

punishment and disciplinary action by defendants. 

Doc. #1 at 3-4.

Preliminarily, all of Plaintiff’s allegations appear to be frivolous because there is no

allegation that any defendant is a state actor and subject to suit for alleged fourteenth

amendment violations. Further, none of the counts allege facts sufficient to state a claim

under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 n.3 (2007). Finally, even if

Plaintiff were given the benefit of the doubt that he could allege facts, none of his “counts”

appear to actually state a fourteenth amendment violation. See Noatak, 896 F.2d at 1166

(Kozinski, J. dissenting) (Plaintiff cannot simply invoke a constitutional provision).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim

and is frivolous. The Court will give Plaintiff ONE opportunity to amend the complaint.

Plaintiff must:

make clear his allegations in short, plain statements with each claim for relief

identified in separate sections. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff must write

out the rights 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 (e)(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 he elects to file an amended complaint and if 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”).

Case 2:08-cv-01381-JAT Document 5 Filed 08/07/08 Page 3 of 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 -

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

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that CV 08-1381 and CV 08-1382 are consolidated with CV 08-

1380; CV 08-1380 is the lead case and all future filings shall be in CV 08-1380-PHX-JAT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, consistent

with this Order within 30 days of the date of this Order, or the case will be dismissed (and

in forma pauperis status denied) for the reasons discussed above.

DATED this 6th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01381-JAT Document 5 Filed 08/07/08 Page 4 of 4