Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00112/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00112-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
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 

Crystal Long, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Maricopa Community College District, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 12-00112-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiff Crystal Long’s Application to Proceed in District 

Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 3), otherwise known as a motion for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant Long’s in forma pauperis application 

and screen her complaint. Screening her complaint reveals defects that require the Court 

to dismiss it, but she will receive an opportunity to amend. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

Permitting Long to proceed in forma pauperis obligates this Court to screen her 

complaint under the following standards. 

A. Screening Standard 

When this Court permits a party to file in forma pauperis, the 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 

Case 2:12-cv-00112-NVW Document 7 Filed 02/22/12 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of § 1915 outlines how prisoners 

can file proceedings in forma pauperis, § 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. 

B. Standard for Stating a Claim 

To state a claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a plaintiff 

must make “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 

to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 

grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) 

(citations omitted). This “short and plain statement” must also be “plausible on its face.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A claim is plausible if it contains 

sufficient factual matter to permit a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for 

the conduct alleged. Id. A proper complaint needs no “formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action,” see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, but the complaint must at 

least contain “[f]actual allegations [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level,” id. All of the plaintiff’s plausible factual allegations are accepted as 

true and the pleadings are construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Knievel v. 

ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). Further, despite Twombly and Iqbal, courts 

continue to construe pro se filings liberally, and give such plaintiffs “the benefit of any 

doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 

II. BACKGROUND 

Long’s complaint is extremely thin on detail. It appears that she was a nursing 

student at Scottsdale Community College, and was dismissed from the program for 

failure to meet certain academic standards. She now sues the Maricopa County 

Community College District (“District”) and nine individuals, alleging four causes of 

action and claiming that the complaint supports additional causes of action. 

Case 2:12-cv-00112-NVW Document 7 Filed 02/22/12 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. Intentional Interference with Contract 

Long alleges that “the named employees of the [District], including Donna Lofaso, 

Jennifer Quinn, Nick Defalco, and Debbie Dollmeyer, intentionally interfered with [her] 

contractual relationship with [the District] . . . by participating in and making a decision 

to withdraw her from Block 2 of the Scottsdale Community College nursing program, 

allegedly due to her obtaining a failing grade in her clinical program in the fall semester 

2010.” This is insufficient to state a cause of action. Long does not identify the nature of 

the contract with the District (i.e., what each party to the contract agreed to do), nor does 

she allege what was improper about these defendants’ actions, nor does she identify the 

damages she suffered. This cause of action will therefore be dismissed with leave to 

amend, so that Long may supply the details that are currently lacking. 

B. Section 1983: First Amendment 

Long claims that “by involuntarily withdrawing her from Block 2 and denying her 

failing grade appeal, her First Amendment rights have been violated.” Long does not 

identify what part of the First Amendment has been violated (i.e., its protections for 

religious expression, speech, or assembly). Long does not explain how dismissal from 

her nursing program and denying her grade appeal violated these rights. Long does not 

identify who specifically is responsible for this alleged violation. This cause of action 

will therefore be dismissed with leave to amend, so that Long may supply the details that 

are currently lacking. 

C. Section 1983: Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection “Class of 

One”) 

Long claims that “she has been intentionally treated differently from other 

similarly situated employees and there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. 

Ms. Long was treated differently because of her age and free expression that she was 

being so treated.” This claim may fit better under her First Amendment cause of action, 

claiming retaliation. But in any event, she does not identify any reason to believe that she 

Case 2:12-cv-00112-NVW Document 7 Filed 02/22/12 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

was treated differently from similarly situated persons for no rational reason. This cause 

of action will therefore be dismissed with leave to amend, so that Long may supply the 

details that are currently lacking. 

D. Section 1983: Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process “Stigma-Plus”) 

Long alleges that “the [District] and the individuals named made false and 

disparaging remarks about Ms. Long and thereby damaged her reputation. By 

involuntarily withdrawing her from the program and making false statements that she had 

not attained sufficient competency in the clinical program, rise [sic] to a claim known as 

a ‘stigma-plus’ claim.” She further claims that she was denied a hearing to clear her 

name. 

Assuming for purposes of argument that Long has a “stigma-plus” claim, she has 

identified no basis for believing that she had not in fact failed to attain sufficient 

competency in the clinical program. Therefore, she has not alleged a basis for believing 

that any false statement was made. Nor has she specifically identified the defendants 

who made any such statement, and who heard the statement. Finally, she has not alleged 

how this supposedly false statement has damaged her. This cause of action will therefore 

be dismissed with leave to amend, so that Long may supply the details that are currently 

lacking. 

E. “Other Claims” 

Under the heading “Other Claims,” Long states that “the facts recited herein also 

support additional claims, including breach of contract, invasion of privacy, defamation, 

and intentional infliction of emotional distress.” If Long intends to pursue any of these 

claims, she must specifically allege them and explain how the facts alleged satisfy those 

causes of action. 

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 leave to file an amended complaint by March 9, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-00112-NVW Document 7 Filed 02/22/12 Page 4 of 5
- 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 

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

complaint by March 9, 2012, the Clerk shall dismiss this action without further order of 

this Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses 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 22nd day of February, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-00112-NVW Document 7 Filed 02/22/12 Page 5 of 5