Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02398/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02398-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

Herb Coleman, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa Integrated Health System

(MIHS); MIHS Employees John and Jane

Does I-X, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-02398-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a pro se Complaint (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed in

District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (Doc. 3.) The Court will grant Plaintiff’s

application to proceed without prepaying fees and costs and, for the reasons stated below,

dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

I. Dismissal of the Complaint

“[A] federal court may dismiss [a complaint] sua sponte if jurisdiction is lacking.”

Fiedler v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted); see Franklin v.

Or. State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) (same). “While a party is

entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a

claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.” Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Group, Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th

Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)

(“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court

Case 2:10-cv-02398-NVW Document 6 Filed 12/06/10 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 -

must dismiss the action.”).

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendant engaged in racially discriminatory

employment practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. However, Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that

jurisdiction in this Court is proper. To establish federal subject matter jurisdiction over a

Title VII claim, a plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) or the appropriate state agency. 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); see also Sommatino v. U.S., 255 F.3d 704, 709 (9th Cir. 2001)

(“In order to bring a Title VII claim in district court, a plaintiff must first exhaust her

administrative remedies.”(citations omitted)); EEOC v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891,

899 (9th Cir. 1994) (“To establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, [Plaintiff] was

required to exhaust her EEOC administrative remedies before seeking federal

adjudication of her claims.” (citing Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920 F.2d 1451, 1456 (9th Cir.1990)

(“Title VII claimants generally establish federal court jurisdiction by first exhausting their

EEOC administrative remedies....”)).

Plaintiff’s complaint does not establish whether he has exhausted his

administrative remedies sufficient to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the

Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

II. Leave to Amend

“In civil rights cases where the plaintiff appears pro se, the court must construe the

pleading liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt.” Karim-Panahi v.

L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). “A pro se litigant

must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the

deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Id. (citations omitted). 

Giving Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, the Court will assume that Plaintiff can allege

that he has exhausted his administrative remedies so as to establish federal court

jurisdiction. Plaintiff will therefore be given an opportunity, if he so chooses, to amend

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

Case 2:10-cv-02398-NVW Document 6 Filed 12/06/10 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 -

relief identified in separate sections. 

Plaintiff is advised that each claim of an alleged violation must be set forth in a

separate count and the factual allegations must be separately numbered. The complaint

must set forth a claim for which relief can be granted in conformity with the requirements

of Rules 8(a) and (d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is also 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 v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (affirming dismissal with prejudice of amended

complaint that did not comply with Rule 8(a)); see also Ferdick v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding district court did not abuse its discretion by

dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to comply with a court order). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District

Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 3) is granted.

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

permission to file an amended complaint by January 3, 2011.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects not to file an amended

complaint by January 3, 2011, the Clerk shall dismiss this action without further order of

this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint,

the complaint may not be served until and unless the court screens the amended complaint

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

DATED this 3rd day of December, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-02398-NVW Document 6 Filed 12/06/10 Page 3 of 3