Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00967/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00967-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

Alexandro Lyman, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-0967-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

Plaintiff Alexandro Lyman has filed an amended complaint against the United 

States. Doc. 6. The Court will screen the amended complaint and dismiss it for failure to 

state a claim. 

I. Legal Standard.

In IFP proceedings, a district court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 

determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted[.]” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Although much of § 1915 concerns prisoner litigation, § 1915(e) 

applies to all IFP proceedings. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(en banc). “Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) . . . allows a district court to dismiss[ ] sua 

sponte . . . a complaint that fails to state a claim[.]” Id. at 1130. “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. A district court dismissing 

under this section “should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading 

was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the 

allegation of other facts.” Id. at 1127-29 (citations omitted). 

Case 2:14-cv-00967-DGC Document 8 Filed 08/26/14 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] pleading that 

states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). This short and plain statement 

“need not contain detailed factual allegations; rather, it must plead ‘enough facts to state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 

F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 

(2007)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“The plausibility 

standard . . . asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 

unlawfully”). Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not given a 

presumption of truthfulness and “conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted 

inferences are not sufficient.” Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Dismissal is appropriate where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory, lacks 

sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory, or contains allegations disclosing 

some absolute defense or bar to recovery. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); Weisbuch v. Cnty of L.A., 119 F.3d 778, 783 n.1 (9th Cir. 

1997). 

II. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint, like his original complaint, is largely incoherent. 

Plaintiff states that his “claim is sought in reference to the United States Constitution 

Amendment 14 Section 4 (sic).” Doc. 6 at 1. That section states that “neither the United 

States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of 

insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or 

emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal 

and void.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 4. Plaintiff refers to this section and states that it 

was “[written] and amended giving meaning that the union debt wouldn’t be ran up to 

repay ex slave owners for lost of slave and lost of land (sic throughout),” and states that 

“over the years the opposite has occurred.” Doc. 6 at 3. The complaint contains no 

specific facts alleging that Defendant has assumed or paid a debt related to insurrection, 

Case 2:14-cv-00967-DGC Document 8 Filed 08/26/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

rebellion, or slavery. The complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief. The Court 

will therefore dismiss it. 

III. Leave to Amend and Plaintiff’s Obligations. 

In this circuit, “[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.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 

1988). The Court concludes that leave to amend would be futile. Plaintiff simply has no 

claim for the wrong he asserts in this case. The Court will not grant further leave to 

amend. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 6) is dismissed. 

2. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

Dated this 26th day of August, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-00967-DGC Document 8 Filed 08/26/14 Page 3 of 3