Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01871/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01871-0/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

Christopher M. Ellington, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michele R. Chandler, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1871-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgement pursuant to

Rule 59(e). (Doc. 12) 

Plaintiff filed a complaint and request for a temporary restraining order on September

1, 2010. On September 3, 2010, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for failure to

comply with Rule 8 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Citing 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) the Order

also noted that with respect to in forma pauperis cases the district court may dismiss the case

if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief

maybe granted, or "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

relief. The Court also noted that while much of section 1915 explains how prisoners can file

proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings

and cited Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) ("section 1915(e) applies to

all in forma pauperis complaints"). The Court stressed that section 1915(e) requires a district

Case 2:10-cv-01871-MHM Document 13 Filed 11/30/10 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 -

court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state claim. 

The Court then discussed what constitutes a proper complaint, attached examples and

directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by September 20, 2010. On September 20,

2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend and attached his amended complaint as an exhibit to

the motion. The Court reviewed the complaint, but determined that the amended complaint

contained many of the same errors as Plaintiff's original complaint. The Court explained that

Plaintiff's injury remains unclear, provides only conclusory allegations and citations to

statutes and mentions of due process without explaining why he is entitled to relief. The

Court ordered that the clerk enter judgment against the Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff now moves to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). Plaintiff

claims that the judgment is without sufficient specificity and so does not provide competent

redress. Plaintiff claims that where the amended complaint identified multiple claims against

multiple defendants, the judgement stating that Plaintiff's allegations were not sufficient to

support a claim for relief did not provide Plaintiff notice as to each claim and each respective

Defendant. The Plaintiff also faults the Order for avoiding "the actual word construction of

the thirteen claims advanced by Plaintiff." 

As an initial matter, both of the Court's prior orders dismissing the complaints

provided greater detail regarding the defects in Plaintiff's complaint than Plaintiff's motion

states. The Court's October 15, 2010 order, which denied Plaintiff's motion to amend and

directed the clerk to enter judgment against the Plaintiff, noted that Plaintiff included

conclusory allegations that were not supported by sufficient allegations to state a claim

under Rule 8. As the Court noted however, it appears that Plaintiff's complaint pertains to

allegedly false or misleading statements made by his wife and her attorney and the disclosure

of information he considered private. What statements were made, in what context, what

private information was disclosed, and how this may have injured Plaintiff in a way that

entitles him to relief are unclear. Merely making the conclusory allegation that the

statements were made by someone acting under color of law and that they injured Plaintiff's

due process rights are not sufficient to state a claim. The Court found that Plaintiff failed to

Case 2:10-cv-01871-MHM Document 13 Filed 11/30/10 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 -

state a claim under Rule 8, and explained its reasoning. Plaintiff's "13 counts" include

statements such as that his wife provided misleading testimony to obtain undue advantage

over plaintiff and that his wife's attorney acted under color of state law and promoted

information known to be false and that an advisor disclosed information plaintiff sought to

keep private. The Court is not obligated to go through each of these "counts", many of which

are just conclusory allegations or factual allegations – and explain why each of these fails to

state a claim.

Finally Plaintiff states that he should not be treated as a prisoner and that his

complaint should not have been pre-screened. As the Court has already noted, however, 28

U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) is not limited to prisoner complaints and requires the Court to dismiss

any complaint filed in forma pauperis that fails to state a claim. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend the

Judgment.

DATED this 29th day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01871-MHM Document 13 Filed 11/30/10 Page 3 of 3