Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01417/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01417-0/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

Donald Muhammad, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona; Greyhound Bus Lines, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1417-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court are the following motions: (1) Defendant State of Arizona's

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 8); (2) Defendant Greyhound's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's

Complaint (Doc. # 16); (3) Defendant State of Arizona's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's

Amendment to Complaint (Doc. # 21); (4) Plaintiff's Motion Not to Dismiss Case (Doc. #

26); (5) Defendant State of Arizona's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 41(b)

(Doc. # 29); (6) Defendant Greyhound Bus Lines Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to

F.R.C.P. Rule 41(b) (Doc. # 30); and (7) Plaintiff's Motion for Interrogatories (Doc. # 31).

I. Background

On June 1, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the State of Arizona and

Greyhound Bus Lines, Inc. (Doc. # 1). In response to the Complaint, both the State of

Arizona and Greyhound filed motions to dismiss. (Docs. ## 8 and 16). Because Plaintiff

failed to respond to the motions to dismiss, the Court, on November 15, 2006, ordered

Plaintiff to respond to each motion by December 8, 2006. (Doc. # 18). Instead of responding

Case 2:06-cv-01417-JAT Document 36 Filed 06/14/07 Page 1 of 6
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

The Court will construe Plaintiff's Motion Not to Dismiss as a response to the

motions to dismiss and, accordingly, will deny Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to

prosecute.

- 2 -

to the motions to dismiss, Plaintiff filed two documents each entitled "Complaint for

Conspiracy." (Docs. ## 19 and 20). In response thereto, the State of Arizona, believing that

the two "Complaint for Conspiracy" documents were an attempt to amend Plaintiff's original

Complaint, filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 21). Thereafter, in light of Plaintiff's failure

to respond to the motions to dismiss, both the State of Arizona and Greyhound filed motions

for summary disposition. (Docs. ## 22 and 23). 

On February 26, 2007, the Court denied the motions for summary disposition and

ordered Plaintiff to respond to the pending motions to dismiss by March 19, 2007. (Doc. #

25). The Court further provided that, in the absence of a response, the State of Arizona and

Greyhound could each move to dismiss for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with

the Court's Order. On March 5, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion Not to Dismiss, in which he

references the pending motions to dismiss and states that he has stated a claim for which

relief can be granted, i.e., disparate treatment based on race in a place of public

accommodation. (Doc. # 26). Thereafter, both the State of Arizona and Greyhound,

construing Plaintiff's Motion Not to Dismiss as being unresponsive to the pending motions

to dismiss, filed motions to dismiss for the failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docs. ## 29 and 30).1

 Finally, on April 17, 2007,

Plaintiff filed a motion for interrogatories. (Doc. # 31). 

II. Discussion

In their original motions to dismiss (Docs. ## 8 and 16), the State of Arizona and

Greyhound argue, in part, that Plaintiff's Complaint violates Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and that dismissal is proper under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court agrees. 

A review of Plaintiff's Complaint reveals a collection of allegations that are confusing,

unorganized and unintelligible. For example, Plaintiff's Complaint appears to be entitled:

Case 2:06-cv-01417-JAT Document 36 Filed 06/14/07 Page 2 of 6
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 -

Complaint, Code Fed. Rule 11 and 7, of professional

responsibility violated: DR 1-102(A)(4); DR 1-1-2(A)(5), DR 7-

102(A)(5); with conspiracy to commit perjury and perjury in

violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621, 1622. Violation of the Interstate

Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. 3(1), 316(D) deprivation of

constitutional rights, 42 U.S.C.A. 1983; and Civil Rights Act of

1964 203(c), 42 U.S.C.A. 2000A-2(c), U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 6,

Title VII Violatetion (sic) Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 50(B) 28

U.S.C.A. N.O.V CRD No. 05-3504 42 U.S.C. 3617 housing or

HUD. 

Thereafter, Plaintiff states: 

Conspiracy = chargles (sic) in the State of Arizona, wich (sic)

work with the Greyhound Lines Inc. against me Donald

Muhammad. State work against me on housing fighting over

my name last name (sic) Muhammad. The State worked against

me Donald Muhammad on my file, no. 05-3504 to take out my

file evedence (sic) to try not to give me justice. And these are

the ones who are the most violators of professional

responsibility. 

Plaintiff then recites a list of individuals allegedly involved in the violation of his

rights. For example, Plaintiff identifies Mr. Steven Scott as:

Another black male who work (sic) for injustice of the AZ. Atty.

Gen. Office who have taken peases (sic) of pages out of my file

05-3504 on the oders (sic) of his boss Ms. Mary Swan or Ms.

Swan this was done on the 5-19-2006 and 5-23-2006 just call

them up and you will see. I welcome anybody to see this file

05-3504. P.S. Pleas (sic) put everything back in my file (

From Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court is unable to discern the nature of the claims

asserted against the Defendants or the specific factual bases for any such claims. As for

Plaintiff's citations to various statutes, Plaintiff fails to indicate which of the Defendants

violated the respective statutes and fails to indicate the factual support for the alleged

violations. While Plaintiff's Motion Not to Dismiss and the Complaints for Conspiracy

contain a bit more detail concerning the claims against the Defendants, the Court finds that

none of those documents sufficiently clarify the claims against the Defendants. Further, as

discussed below, the Court will order the Complaints for Conspiracy stricken from the

record. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for

Case 2:06-cv-01417-JAT Document 36 Filed 06/14/07 Page 3 of 6
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

Because the Court cannot determine what specific claims are being asserted against

the State of Arizona, the Court, at this time, cannot grant the State of Arizona's motion to

dismiss on the ground that the Eleventh Amendment bars the lawsuit against it. Further, the

Court rejects Greyhound's res judicata argument because the prior judgment of dismissal was

not on the merits. See CV 06-1057-PHX-RCB, Doc. # 16. Instead, the prior judgment of

dismissal was based only on insufficiency of service of process. Id.

- 4 -

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.2

 However, the Court will allow

Plaintiff 10 days to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies in his Complaint.

However, Plaintiff is instructed that the amended complaint must comply with Rule

8(a) by plainly setting forth the claims against each Defendant, including plainly setting

forth the legal and factual bases of each claim. Further, the first paragraph of the

amended complaint must plainly set forth the jurisdictional bases supporting the

Court's subject matter jurisdiction over any claims asserted against the Defendants.

If the first paragraph of the amended complaint fails to plainly set forth the bases of

subject matter jurisdiction, then the Court will dismiss the amended complaint.

Regarding Defendant State of Arizona's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amendment to

Complaint (Doc. # 21), which seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaints for Conspiracy, the

Court will strike the Complaints for Conspiracy because Plaintiff failed to seek leave of court

or consent of the Defendants before filing what the Court construes as amendments to the

Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Accordingly, the Court will deny as moot the State

of Arizona's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amendment. 

Regarding Plaintiff's Motion Not to Dismiss Case (Doc. # 26), the Court already has

determined that dismissal of the Complaint is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion Not to Dismiss will be denied.

Regarding Defendant State of Arizona's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule

41(b) (Doc. # 29) and Defendant Greyhound Bus Lines Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant

to F.R.C.P. Rule 41(b) (Doc. # 30), the Court construes Plaintiff's Motion Not to Dismiss as

a response to the original motions to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motions

Case 2:06-cv-01417-JAT Document 36 Filed 06/14/07 Page 4 of 6
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 - 5 -

to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

Finally, regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Interrogatories (Doc. # 31), the Court is

unable to determine what, if any, relief Plaintiff is seeking. Accordingly, the Court will deny

Plaintiff's Motion for Interrogatories. Similarly, the Court is unable to determine what relief,

if any, Plaintiff is seeking in the document entitled, in part, "TO ENTER AN ORDER" (Doc.

# 35), which was filed on June 11, 2007. Accordingly, to the extent the document filed on

June 11, 2007, (Doc. # 35) seeks some relief, it is denied. 

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant State of Arizona's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 8) is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part consistent with the above opinion; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Greyhound's Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. # 16) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part consistent with

the above opinion; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall strike from the record

Plaintiff's Complaint of Conspiracy (Doc. # 19) and Complaint of Conspiracy (Doc. # 20);

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant State of Arizona's Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff's Amendment to Complaint (Doc. # 21) is DENIED as moot; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion Not to Dismiss Case (Doc. #

26) is DENIED; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant State of Arizona's Motion to Dismiss

Pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 41(b) (Doc. # 29) is DENIED; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Greyhound Bus Lines Inc.'s Motion

to Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 41(b) (Doc. # 30) is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Interrogatories (Doc. # 31)

is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's document entitled, in part, "TO ENTER

AN ORDER" (Doc. # 35) is DENIED;

Case 2:06-cv-01417-JAT Document 36 Filed 06/14/07 Page 5 of 6
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 - 6 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file, if at all, an amended complaint

within 10 days of this Order. 

DATED this 14th day of June, 2007.

 

Case 2:06-cv-01417-JAT Document 36 Filed 06/14/07 Page 6 of 6