Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02057/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02057-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 

Brian G. Phillips, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Salt River Police Department, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV13-02057-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Pro se Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 

without prepaying fees or costs. Doc. 5. The Court will deny the motion without 

prejudice. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

before it is allowed to be served. Pursuant to that screening, Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 

1) will be dismissed. 

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 section 1915 concerns prisoner litigation, 

section 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. A district 

court dismissing under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) “should grant leave to amend even if no 

request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not 

Case 2:13-cv-02057-DGC Document 6 Filed 12/12/13 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Id. at 1127-29 (citations omitted). 

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)). 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. County of L.A., 119 F.3d 778, 783, n.1 (9th Cir. 1997). 

II. Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

The complaint in this case names the Salt River Police Department, Maricopa 

County Sheriff’s Department, Salt River Casino, and Bureau of Indian Affairs as 

Defendants. Doc. 1. The complaint alleges “police misconduct,” “false arrest,” that 

Plaintiff’s vehicle was searched without probable cause, that his vehicle was “illegally 

confiscated,” that his vehicle is being “driven by an agent of the defendant, Salt River 

Police Department, illegally,” and that his “civil and due to process rights” were violated. 

These allegations, however, are merely legal conclusions and Plaintiff has not pled any 

facts from which the Court could reasonably infer misconduct on the part of any 

defendant. Plaintiff has named the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office as a Defendant but 

merely alleges that it has engaged in conduct similar to the conduct Plaintiff seems to 

complain about. Plaintiff alleges that a security guard at the Casino stopped him for 

smoking marijuana, but Plaintiff does not explain the basis for the Casino’s liability, nor 

does Plaintiff allege that the casino is a separate jural entity subject to suit. Plaintiff does 

Case 2:13-cv-02057-DGC Document 6 Filed 12/12/13 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

not include any further description of how his rights were violated. 

“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice” to state a claim for which relief can be granted 

under Rule 8. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). Without 

any facts that “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief” (id. at 679), Plaintiff’s 

complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 

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 will dismiss the complaint without prejudice and allow Plaintiff to file 

an amended complaint that properly states a claim for relief. Plaintiff shall have until 

January 6, 2014 to file an amended complaint. If an amended complaint is not filed by 

that date, the Clerk is directed to terminate this action without further order. 

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”), which may be obtained in the Clerk of Court’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 “must contain (1) a short and plain 

statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . (2) a short and plain statement of 

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

sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). These pleading requirements shall be set forth in separate 

and discrete paragraphs. Rule 8(d) provides that each such paragraph “must be simple, 

concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 

The “short and plain statement of the claim” required by Rule 8(a)(2) must not 

only designate a cause of action, but must also include enough factual allegations to 

render the claim plausible. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint asserting 

constitutional violations by federal or state officials, his pleading should include a 

Case 2:13-cv-02057-DGC Document 6 Filed 12/12/13 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

statement of the constitutional rights Plaintiff believes to have been violated, how each 

right was violated, how each defendant contributed to the violation, and what injury was 

caused by each alleged constitutional violation. Such factual allegations must provide 

enough information to “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 

defendant[s are] liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

If Plaintiff fails to prosecute this action or to comply with the rules or any Court 

order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se 

plaintiff’s complaint for failing to comply with a court order). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s request for IFP status (Doc. 5) is denied without prejudice. 

Plaintiff may refile his request for IFP status if he files an amended 

complaint. 

2. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice. 

3. Plaintiff shall have until January 6, 2014, to file an amended complaint. 

4. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action without further order of the 

Court if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by January 6, 2014. 

 Dated this 12th day of December, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-02057-DGC Document 6 Filed 12/12/13 Page 4 of 4