Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01559/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01559-0/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

Jeffrey J. Doering I, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joe M. Arpaio, County Sheriff; Julie

Ahlquist, Division Commander; and

Unknown MCSOs 1-7, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1559-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action against Defendants by filing a pro se

complaint on July 28, 2009. Dkt. #1. Defendants Joseph Arpaio and Julie Ahlquist have

filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #9. In response to that motion, Plaintiff has filed a motion

for leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. #14.

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend his

pleading once as a matter of course before being served with a responsive pleading. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). Because a motion to dismiss is not a “responsive pleading” within the

meaning of Rule 15(a), see Nolan v. Fitzharris, 450 F.2d 958, 958 (9th Cir. 1971), Plaintiff

may file an amended complaint as a matter of course and without leave of Court. See also

Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986);

Allwaste, Inc. v. Hecht, 65 F.3d 1523, 1530 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff shall file an amended

Case 2:09-cv-01559-DGC Document 15 Filed 11/03/09 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 -

complaint by November 20, 2009. The Court will deny as moot the motion for leave to file

an amended complaint (Dkt. #14). Defendants’ motion to dismiss the original complaint

(Dkt. #9) also will be denied as moot.

Plaintiff is advised that he must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of

Arizona (“Local Rules”). See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Pro se

litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”); Carter v.

Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Although pro se,

[plaintiff] is expected to abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates.”). The Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure are available at the following Internet website: http://www.

law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/. A copy of the Court’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure may be

obtained from the Clerk’s Office.

For purposes of the amended complaint, Plaintiff is directed to Rule 8 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint shall contain a short and plain

statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, and a demand for the

relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). These pleading requirements shall be set forth in

separate and discrete paragraphs. Each paragraph “must be simple, concise, and direct.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

The amended complaint must give each Defendant fair notice of Plaintiff’s claim and

“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)). “The plausibility standard . . . asks for more than a

sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully,” demanding instead sufficient factual

allegations to allow “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer

more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has not

Case 2:09-cv-01559-DGC Document 15 Filed 11/03/09 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 -

‘show[n]’ – ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id. at 1950 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).

Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to prosecute this action or comply with the

rules or any Court order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 41(b); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992); see also Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court did not err in dismissing pro se civil rights

action for failure to comply with a local rule); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-43

(9th Cir. 2002) (district court did not err in dismissing pro se action for failure to comply

with a court order).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by November 20, 2009.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file amended complaint (Dkt. #14) is denied as

moot.

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the original complaint (Dkt. #9) is denied as

moot.

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01559-DGC Document 15 Filed 11/03/09 Page 3 of 3