Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01850/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01850-0/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

William "Bill" Stoller,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona State University and Deborah

Sullivan,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1850-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff William "Bill" Stoller's ("Plaintiff") Motion to

proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. #3). Having reviewed the Motion, the Court issues the

following Order.

Plaintiff's Motion to proceed in forma pauperis demonstrates that Plaintiff does not

possess the means to pay the filing fee in this case. Accordingly, the Court will grant the

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

However, the Motion to proceed in forma pauperis requires the Court to screen the

Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a) and (e)(2). In screening a complaint filed with a

request to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss the complaint at any time if it

is "frivolous or malicious" or if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),(ii). 

The Complaint alleges that Defendants Arizona State University and Deborah

Sullivan, on or about November of 2004, "colluded and conspired to intentionally,

Case 2:06-cv-01850-MHM Document 4 Filed 08/10/06 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 -

maliciously and unlawfully expel the Plaintiff from A.S.U. under color of the Arizona Board

of Regents...Rules." (Complaint ¶ 5). Plaintiff asserts only that the Defendants' conduct

violates Title 42 of the United States Code Annotated. Plaintiff does not specify further

which section of Title 42 Defendants violated. Based upon the allegations of Plaintiff's

Complaint, it appears Plaintiff is asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(3), which

addresses conspiratorial conduct to deprive a person of equal protection under the laws. The

elements of a § 1985(3) claim are (1) the existence of a conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff

or equal protection of the laws; (2) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (3) resulting

injury. Scott v. Ross, 140 F.3d 1275, 1284 (9th Cir. 1998). However, "[a] mere allegation

of conspiracy without factual specificity is insufficient." Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles

Police Dep't., 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1998). In the instant case, Plaintiff asserts only that

the Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to expel Plaintiff from Arizona State University.

Such bare allegations regarding the existence of a conspiracy are not sufficient to assert a

claim under § 1985(3). As such, Plaintiff's Complaint will be dismissed. However, the Court

will grant Plaintiff leave to attempt to assert an actionable claim under § 1985(3) and Title

42 because the assertion of additional facts may state a claim. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (holding that a court should grant leave to amend if

the pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, or it is appears at all possible that

the defect can be corrected). 

In any amended complaint alleging the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights,

Plaintiff must tell the Court: (1) the constitutional right or statutory provision under which

Plaintiff is proceeding; (2) the constitutional right or statutory provision which Plaintiff

believes has been violated; (3) exactly what the named Defendants did or failed to do and

the date or dates of the act or omission alleged; (4) how the action or inaction of the

Defendant is connected to the alleged violation; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff has

suffered because of Defendant's conduct. Plaintiff may set forth his allegation in numbered

paragraphs for purposes of clarity. Plaintiff further should set forth a plain and concise

statement of the relief he is seeking.

Case 2:06-cv-01850-MHM Document 4 Filed 08/10/06 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 -

Plaintiff should take notice that if he fails to comply with every provision of this

Order, or any order of the Court entered in this matter, the action will be dismissed pursuant

to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258

(9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any order of the

court). 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Plaintiff's Motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, without prepayment of costs or fees or the necessity of giving security therefore.

Plaintiff shall be responsible for service by waiver or of the summons and complaint.

(Dkt.#3). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk's office to withhold providing

Plaintiff with the service packet until the Court has screened Plaintiff's amended complaint,

should he choose to file one. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice with

leave to amend. Plaintiff shall have 20 days from the date this Order is filed in which to file

an amended complaint in order to state specific allegations against the Defendants. The

amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety and may not incorporate any

part of the original complaint by reference. Any amended complaint submitted by Plaintiff

should be clearly designated as such on the face of the document.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment

of dismissal without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff, if Plaintiff fails to

timely file an amended complaint within 20 days from the date this Order is filed. 

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01850-MHM Document 4 Filed 08/10/06 Page 3 of 3