Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01272/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01272-1/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

Donald Muhammad,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Rita Cordova; Dave Deneau and Donna

Overstreet,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1272-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Donald Muhammad's ("Plaintiff") First

Amended Complaint. On June 7, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in

forma pauperis but dismissed with leave to amend Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to the

Court's authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). On June 14, 2005 Plaintiff filed his Amended

Complaint naming Rita Cordova, Dave Deneau and Donna Overstreet as Defendants.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges several constitutional theories against them under 42 U.S.C. §§

1983, 1985, 1986 and violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments of the

United States Constitution. 

In screening a complaint, 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). In the Court's original screening order, the Court held that

Plaintiff failed to comply with the pleading guidelines of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which require that a complaint contain a "short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The Court finds that the same defect exists as

Case 2:06-cv-01272-MHM Document 13 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 -

several portions of the Amended Complaint are illegible. However, even in setting aside the

difficulty in reading Plaintiff's claims, it appears that Plaintiff's claims are without merit.

Specifically, Plaintiff names three Defendants individually for their conduct that appears to

derive out of a name change application attempted by Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant Cordova did not properly handle Plaintiff's name change application. (Complaint

"Compl." ¶ 3). Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Overstreet did not send the "Policies and

Regulations" to Plaintiff governing a name change. (Compl. ¶ 4). Lastly, Plaintiff alleges

that Defendant Deneau "turn[ed] his back" on Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 5). However, while these

allegations are made to support Plaintiff's constitutional claims, there is no indication in the

Complaint that the Defendant's alleged wrongful actions were the product of state action or

occurred under "color of law." George v. Pacific CSC-Work Furlough, 91 F.3d 1227, 1229

(9th Cir. 1996), cert denied, 519 U.S. 1081 (1997) (citations omitted) (stating that

"[i]ndividuals bringing actions against private parties for infringement of their constitutional

rights, therefore, must show that the private parties' infringement somehow constitutes state

action." Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838, 102 S.Ct. 2764 (1982) (holding that in

§ 1983 actions, "color of law" is synonymous with state action). Rather, the allegations in

Plaintiff's complaint are made solely against the Defendants in their individual capacity. As

such, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. However, the Court will again

grant Plaintiff leave to attempt to assert an actionable claim as it is not clear whether the

assertion of other facts, such as any connection to state action, will save Plaintiff's claims.

See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (stating that a court

should grant leave to amend if the pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts,

or if it appears at all possible that the defect can be corrected). 

Therefore, the Amended Complaint will again be dismissed with leave to amend to

allow Plaintiff to clearly assert his claims in short, plain and legible statements which

demonstrate he is entitled to relief. In any amended complaint, 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)

Case 2:06-cv-01272-MHM Document 13 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 -

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.

Plaintiff should take notice that if he fails to timely 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 that Plaintiff's Amended 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 a second amended complaint in order to state specific allegations

against the Defendants. The second amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its

entirety and may not incorporate any part of the original complaint by reference. Any second

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 the Court is directed to enter a

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

fails to timely file a second amended complaint within 20 days from the date this Order is

filed. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying without prejudice Defendants Cordova and

Deneau's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (Dkt.#7). 

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01272-MHM Document 13 Filed 08/10/06 Page 3 of 3