Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00003/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00003-0/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

Nicol A. Ybarra,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Buckeye Police Department, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-20-00003-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (Doc. 2), which the Court hereby grants. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s

complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)1 before it is allowed to be served. 

Pursuant to that screening, the complaint will be dismissed. 

I. Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a complaint is subject to dismissal if it contains 

claims that are “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted,” or that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 

such relief.” Id. Additionally, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading 

must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 

to relief.” Id. Although Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands 

more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. 

 

1 Although section 1915 largely concerns prisoner litigation, section 1915(e) applies 

to all in forma pauperis proceedings. Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”).

Case 2:20-cv-00003-DWL Document 6 Filed 01/06/20 Page 1 of 5
- 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

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible 

claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw 

on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s 

specific factual allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must 

assess whether there are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id.

at 681.

The Ninth Circuit has instructed that courts must “construe pro se filings 

liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a 

pro se litigant] ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 

lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 

Conclusory and vague allegations, however, will not support a cause of action. Ivey v. 

Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). A liberal 

interpretation may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled. 

Id.

“If a pleading can be cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is 

entitled to an opportunity to amend before the final dismissal of the action.” Ball v. Cty. 

of Maricopa, 2017 WL 1833611, *1 (D. Ariz. 2017) (concluding that complaint could not 

be amended to state a cognizable claim and dismissing with prejudice).

II. Analysis

Plaintiff sued two defendants: (1) Buckeye City Police Department and (2) 

Buckeye Police Officer A. Price.

The facts, in their entirety, are as follows: “The officer A. Price committed a 

Case 2:20-cv-00003-DWL Document 6 Filed 01/06/20 Page 2 of 5
- 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

federal crime against [Plaintiff] by committing perjury by law under the direct orders of 

his superiors to make the ‘Buckeye Police Department look fluffed up.’” (Doc. 1 at 1.) 

Plaintiff seeks $5 million in damages. (Id.)

The facts as alleged do not give rise to any cognizable claims. In short, there is 

only one “fact” alleged—that Officer Price committed perjury—but this is a legal 

conclusion, which cannot support a cause of action. Ivey, 673 F.2d at 268. Additionally, 

the complaint does not allege a date on which the challenged conduct occurred.

Furthermore, the Court has an obligation to determine whether it has subjectmatter jurisdiction. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). 

Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the court 

determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the 

action.”

Plaintiff alleges that all parties are Arizona citizens and asserts that this Court has 

jurisdiction “pursuant to Arizona Blue Laws §§ Falsifying legal documents.” (Id.) 

Presumably, Plaintiff brings this action on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, as the 

complaint references a “federal crime.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) But no federal law is cited, and 

therefore Plaintiff failed to establish federal question jurisdiction.

The Court will dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. “Dismissal of a pro se 

complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the 

deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Schucker v. Rockwood, 

846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

“If a pleading can be cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to 

an opportunity to amend before the final dismissal of the action.” Ball v. Cty. of 

Maricopa, 2017 WL 1833611, *1 (D. Ariz. 2017).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint must adhere to all portions of Rule 7.1 of the Local 

Rules of Civil Procedure (“LRCiv”). Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that the amended 

complaint must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Specifically, the amended complaint shall contain a short and plain statement 

Case 2:20-cv-00003-DWL Document 6 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 5
- 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

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

of each specific claim asserted against each Defendant, and a good faith demand for the 

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

in separate and discrete numbered paragraphs, and “[e]ach allegation must be simple, 

concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) (“A party 

must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as 

practicable to a single set of circumstances.”). Where a complaint contains the factual 

elements of a cause, but those elements are scattered throughout the complaint without 

any meaningful organization, the complaint does not set forth a “short and plain 

statement of the claim” for purposes of Rule 8. Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 

F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988).

Plaintiff is advised that if the amended complaint fails to comply with the Court’s 

instructions explained in this Order, the action may be dismissed pursuant to 

section 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and/or Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming 

dismissal with prejudice of amended complaint that did not comply with Rule 8(a)). 

Given this specific guidance on pleading requirements, the Court is not inclined to grant 

Plaintiff leave to file another amended complaint if the first amended complaint is found 

to be deficient. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming 

dismissal with prejudice where district court had instructed pro se plaintiff regarding 

deficiencies in prior order dismissing claim with leave to amend); Ascon Props., Inc. v. 

Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The district court’s discretion to 

deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the 

complaint.”).

Plaintiff is directed to become familiar with the Local Rules and the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure and is reminded that the Federal Court Self-Service Clinic provides 

free civil legal help to self-represented litigants. (See Notice to Self-Represented 

Litigant, Doc. 5 at 7.)

Case 2:20-cv-00003-DWL Document 6 Filed 01/06/20 Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

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

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Application to Proceed in District Court without 

Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed

with leave to file an amended complaint by February 6, 2020. The amended complaint 

must adhere to LRCiv 7.1.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint 

by February 6, 2020, the Clerk of Court shall terminate the action.

Dated this 6th day of January, 2020.

Case 2:20-cv-00003-DWL Document 6 Filed 01/06/20 Page 5 of 5