Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-04896/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-04896-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Christerphor Ziglar,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Parc Dispensary,

Defendant.

No. CV-18-04896-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

Before the Court are Parc Dispensary’s (“Parc”) motion to dismiss (Docs. 44, 48, 

54) and Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Docs. 49, 57). The Court will grant Parc’s motion to 

dismiss and deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend. 

The Court previously gave Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint to 

address deficiencies. (Doc. 30.) However, as Parc’s motion to dismiss underscores, 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to abide by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), 

neglecting to include a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief” such that Parc may be on “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 

grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 

Rather, Plaintiff’s threadbare amended complaint contains no facts to support the allegation 

that Parc retaliated against him by terminating his employment in violation of Title VII. 

As a result, his amended complaint fails to state a claim, and Parc’s motion to dismiss is 

granted. 

Case 2:18-cv-04896-DLR Document 58 Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 2
- 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

Recognizing his failure to abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff 

moves for leave to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 49.) Plaintiff’s proposed 

second amended complaint (Doc. 49 at 2) similarly does not comply with the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, despite the Court’s repeated efforts to direct Plaintiff to the rules. The 

second amended complaint does not state the law under which he believes he is entitled to 

relief, name the entity he is suing, or include various other crucial details. (Id.) In light of 

Plaintiff’s “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments,” the Court will 

deny his motion to file second amended complaint. U.S. ex rel. Lee v. SmithKline Beecham, 

Inc., 245 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th 

Cir 1995)). Even considering the leniency given to pro se litigants, Plaintiff was

nevertheless required to familiarize himself with the rules and abide by them accordingly. 

Plaintiff’s recurring failure to do so has allowed this case to sluggishly carry on for years, 

during which time the Court has expended valuable time and resources to address his noncompliance. 

IT IS ORDERED that Parc’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 44) is GRANTED and 

Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 49) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to 

terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of Parc, and close the case.

Dated this 20th day of March, 2020.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cv-04896-DLR Document 58 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 2