Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08269/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08269-0/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 

William Beaver, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Thomas L. Chotena, 

 Defendant.

No. CV-16-8269-PCT-DKD

ORDER 

This Order addresses Plaintiff’s request to proceed without the prepayment of fees 

because of his indigency, as well as the complaint Plaintiff filed on November 14, 2016. 

 In every case where a Plaintiff seeks to file a case without the prepayment of fees 

the Court is required to analyze plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether that complaint 

should be dismissed because it is not a case that is properly brought in federal court. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)((2)(B)(ii) Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a number of wrongs associated 

with the imposition of a traffic ticket in Flagstaff Municipal Court. The Plaintiff 

complains of actions which violate the Magna Carta, unspecified United States 

constitutional provisions and laws as well as other specified and unspecified authorities. 

Amid Plaintiff’s many pages, quoting many documents of questionable relation to 

anything of relevance (such as Congressional parliamentary proceedings during the Civil 

War) there is nothing which demonstrates the existence of federal court jurisdiction in 

this case. 

Case 3:16-cv-08269-DKD Document 7 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

 Plaintiff should understand that the federal courts of the United States are courts of 

limited jurisdiction and only matters that are authorized under the Constitution or laws of 

the United States may be brought in federal court, which is, again, a court of limited

jurisdiction. Most matters are properly heard in state courts which are courts of general

jurisdiction. A challenge to a state or local traffic citation perhaps may be asserted by 

appeal to a higher state court or under a challenge based on state law in state court. With 

respect to Plaintiff’s standing argument, which appears to argue that the ticket was 

invalid because the citing officer was not the victim, the Court is aware of no federal 

authority which supports such a challenge. 

 If there is federal jurisdiction for this case, Plaintiff’s complaint must show that 

this is so. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (available on-line or in any public 

library) require that Plaintiff’s complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the 

grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1). Again, 

federal court jurisdiction is limited to matters arising under the constitution and laws of 

the United States (this is called “federal question” jurisdiction) or cases where citizens of 

different states are the plaintiff and defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000 (this is called “diversity jurisdiction”). If Plaintiff contends that federal question 

jurisdiction exists, Plaintiff must specifically state which Constitutional provision or 

federal statute confers such jurisdiction. A general or non-specific reference to the 

Constitution or laws of the United is insufficient. 

 To provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to allege federal court jurisdiction if 

Plaintiff thinks it exists, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. 

Any amended complaint must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 

therefore must satisfy the jurisdictional showing discussed above as well as set forth “a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Plaintiff must take care to set forth specifically 

which federal statute or provision of the U.S. Constitution was violated by the defendant. 

Case 3:16-cv-08269-DKD Document 7 Filed 11/18/16 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint 

complying with this Order within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. The 

Court will hold in abeyance its ruling on Plaintiff’s request to proceed without the 

prepayment of fees and costs until after it has had the opportunity to review Plaintiff’s 

amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this Order may result 

in the dismissal of this matter. 

 Dated this 18th day of November, 2016. 

Case 3:16-cv-08269-DKD Document 7 Filed 11/18/16 Page 3 of 3