Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01417/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01417-2/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.

State of Arizona; Greyhound Bus Lines, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1417-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for

Failure to Comply with Court's Order and Rule 8, Fed.R.Civ.P. (Doc. # 41). 

On June 14, 2007, the Court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint under

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. The Court provided Plaintiff ten days to file an amended

complaint. In so doing, the Court admonished Plaintiff that any amended complaint must

comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by plainly setting forth the

claims against each Defendant and the bases of the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. The

Court further admonished Plaintiff that his failure to plainly set forth the bases of subject

matter jurisdiction would result in the dismissal of the amended complaint. 

Case 2:06-cv-01417-JAT Document 43 Filed 09/04/07 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

On June 20, 2007, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. # 37). On June 28,

2007, the Court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for again failing

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. However, the Court provided Plaintiff an

additional ten days within which to file a second amended complaint. In so doing, the Court

instructed Plaintiff that any second amended complaint must allege as to each defendant a

short and plain statement of the claim or claims showing entitlement to relief. The Court also

instructed Plaintiff that any second amended complaint must plainly set forth the

jurisdictional bases supporting the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over any claims sought

to be asserted. Thereafter, the Court warned Plaintiff that another failure to comply with

Rule 8 would result in the dismissal of the second amended complaint without leave to

further amend.

On July 3, 2007, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (Doc. # 40). Like the

prior two complaints, the Second Amended Complaint fails to state any claims upon which

relief can be granted. First, as against Greyhound Lines, Inc., Plaintiff alleges that he was

removed from Greyhound's terminal facilities despite having a valid ticket and was then

charged with criminal trespass. Although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed,

Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam), this brief and conclusory

statement is insufficient to establish a claim against Greyhound upon which relief can be

granted. Second, as against the State of Arizona, Plaintiff's claim appears to recount some

dealings regarding housing between Plaintiff and a State of Arizona employee:

State of Arizona = you said or your report stated = M3 no

reasonable cause. Atty:Gen. On the official closure date: 1-13-

06, date submitted to CM: 11-9-05, date of approval: 11-10-05

maybe it was the month of November-10-2005, it's hard to make

this month out. And you put the same person who was assingd

(sic), to my housing case and he Tony Wilber is in agreement

disparate treatment base (sic) on race in a place of public

accomodation (sic) - and my housing. State of Arizona - Base

(sic) upon its investigation, the civil rights divison (sic) has

concluded that the information obtained is not sufficient to

establish violations of the statute(s) = 13-1502. A1 Class 3

misdemeanor. 

Case 2:06-cv-01417-JAT Document 43 Filed 09/04/07 Page 2 of 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

1

While the State of Arizona has not moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended

Complaint, the Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), nonetheless has the authority to dismiss

the complaint as against the State of Arizona as well. 

- 3 -

These allegations are patently incomprehensible and fail to establish a claim against

the State of Arizona upon which relief can be granted. Finally, that Plaintiff's Second

Amended Complaint fails to establish any claim upon which relief can be granted is further

highlighted in Plaintiff's August 1, 2007, filing (Doc. # 42). In that filing, Plaintiff states:

I Donald Muhammad belived (sic) that James A. Teilborg was

interfer (sic) by other to do right by the law 28 U.S.C.A. §

1443(1)(2). I also belived (sic) that bribery, and coercion = or

intimidation of other judges and lawyers was under Paul K.

Charlton and his crew Ronald R. Gallegos and Terry Goddard

and his crew. And Senior Judge Robert C. Bloomfild or

Broomfild (sic) = of bribery and blocking out or with the Atty:

Gen to block out sworn statements. One day we will dill (sic)

with this injustice 28 U.S.C.A. § 1443(1)(2).

Please respon (sic) in the interrogatories Rule 12(b)(E), what

was Greyhound doing at the housing on June-29-2005.

Presedent (sic) George W. Bush these officer of the govement

(sic) like, Atty Gen: Paul K. Charlton Atty:Gen Terry Goddard

and Judge Robert C. Bloom or Broomfild (sic) Senior Judge =

and thair (sic) partners the canad (sic) govement (sic) which

own or licened (sic) laid law who owns Greyhound Lines, Inc.

They are interference (sic) in or to control the American

govement (sic) thur (sic) these peoples.

Accordingly, the Court, pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), will dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Because

Plaintiff has twice failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, despite the Court's

warning that a second failure would result in dismissal without leave to further amend, the

Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend.1

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for

Failure to Comply with Court's Order and Rule 8, Fed.R.Civ.P. (Doc. # 41) is GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is

dismissed, with prejudice, for the reasons stated herein and the Clerk of the Court shall enter

Case 2:06-cv-01417-JAT Document 43 Filed 09/04/07 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 4th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01417-JAT Document 43 Filed 09/04/07 Page 4 of 4