Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01451/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01451-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

Frederick Minix, Denise Minix,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

William Jennings, Joe Arredondo,

Cameron Payne, Anthony Moreno . 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1451-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis. (Doc. # 4). The Court has screened Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2) and will dismiss it for failure to state a claim. “[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits

but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a

claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original

claim, counter-claim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short

and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends,

unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds

of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for

the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of several different

types may be demanded.

Case 2:10-cv-01451-MHM Document 7 Filed 07/30/10 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 -

Here, Plaintiffs’ Complaint plainly fails to state a claim for relief. The Complaint

contains several obvious legal flaws that render the Court unable to currently grant Plaintiffs’

request to proceed IFP. By way of example, Plaintiffs have sued Defendant William

Jennings under A.R.S. § 12-511, A.R.S. § 13-420, A.R.S. § 13-2311, A.R.S. § 13-1802A5,

18 U.S.C. § 1001, A.R.S. § 13-1802, and A.R.S. § 13-2002. The Court notes that private

civil plaintiffs may not bring suit in federal court against civil defendants for violations of

federal or state criminal statutes. As such, Plaintiffs’ claims against Jennings brought under

18 U.S.C. § 1001, A.R.S. § 13-2311, A.R.S. § 13-1802A5, and A.R.S. § 13-2002 must all

fail as a matter of law. In addition, the Court appears to lack jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’

claim under A.R.S. § 12-511. Plaintiffs should be aware that Article III, Section 2 of the

United States Constitution as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1332, prevent federal courts from

adjudicating lawsuits where the Court lacks “diversity jurisdiction.” It is not altogether clear

how this Court would have diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining civil claims, when

the Complaint does not attempt to set forth the citizenship of the Parties.

As such, the Court will give Plaintiffs one opportunity to amend their 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 v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358205, *3 (D. Ariz. 2005). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED dismissing Plaintiffs’ Complaint without prejudice for failure to

comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). (Doc. #1)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed in

Forma Pauperis (Doc. # 4). 

Case 2:10-cv-01451-MHM Document 7 Filed 07/30/10 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Return of Property as

moot (Doc. 6).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs may file an Amended Complaint and

another Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis no later than 30 days from the date

of this order. If no Amended Complaint is filed, this case will be dismissed without further

notice.

DATED this 29th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01451-MHM Document 7 Filed 07/30/10 Page 3 of 3