Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08175/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08175-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edward F. Parks, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Mohave County Sheriff’s Department, et

al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-8175-PCT-GMS (DKD)

ORDER

On November 10, 2011, Plaintiff Edward F. Parks, who was confined in the Mohave

County Jail when he filed this lawsuit, but has been released, filed a pro se Complaint. In

a December 8, 2011 Order, the Court noted that Plaintiff had not paid the $350.00 civil action

filing fee or filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court gave Plaintiff

30 days to pay the filing fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

On December 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

In a January 11, 2012 Order, the Court denied the deficient Application to Proceed and gave

Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the filing fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis.

On February 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis. The Court will grant the second Application to Proceed and will dismiss this

lawsuit.

Case 3:11-cv-08175-GMS--DKD Document 10 Filed 02/16/12 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 -

I. Second Application to Proceed

Plaintiff’s second Application to Proceed will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The

Court, in its discretion, will grant Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and will not require

Plaintiff to pay the filing fee.

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised

claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does not

demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (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 1950. 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 1951.

But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts

must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th

Case 3:11-cv-08175-GMS--DKD Document 10 Filed 02/16/12 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

- 3 -

Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘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)).

III. Lack of Jurisdiction

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and limitations on the court’s jurisdiction

must neither be disregarded nor evaded. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S.

365, 374 (1978). The Court is obligated to determine sua sponte whether it has subject

matter jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004).

See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “[a] pleading that states

a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction . . . .” In order to proceed in federal court, Plaintiff must demonstrate some right

of action and legal entitlement to the damages he seeks. In this case, the most likely source

of a right to sue is 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has jurisdiction over such cases pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3). 

Plaintiff has not alleged that his Complaint arises pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or that

the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3). He has alleged that the case

arises pursuant to “other,” but has not explained what “other” is; he has alleged no

jurisdictional basis at all. Thus, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, without

prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Watson v. Chessman, 362 F. Supp. 2d

1190, 1194 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (“The court will not . . . infer allegations supporting federal

jurisdiction; federal subject matter [jurisdiction] must always be affirmatively alleged.”). 

IV. Dismissal without Leave to Amend

Although Plaintiff could cure by amendment the jurisdictional defect identified in this

Order, the Court will not grant leave to amend. The case, even with a proper jurisdictional

basis, must be dismissed under the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401

U.S. 37 (1971). 

Case 3:11-cv-08175-GMS--DKD Document 10 Filed 02/16/12 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 -

The abstention doctrine set forth in Younger, prevents a federal court in most

circumstances from directly interfering with ongoing criminal proceedings in state court.

“[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal

interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment

has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts.” Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d

764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972). Special circumstances occur “[o]nly in cases of proven

harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of

obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where

irreparable injury can be shown.” Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 84 (9th Cir. 1980)

(quoting Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971)).

 In the Request for Relief section of his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks “[r]elease from

these fake charges[;] not guilty of assault[;] no ticket was issued, July 15, 201[1].” Based on

Plaintiff’s allegations, Younger abstention is appropriate.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 9) is granted.

Plaintiff is granted in forma pauperis status and may proceed without payment of the filing

fee.

(2) The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

(3) The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of this

decision would not be taken in good faith.

DATED this 15th day of February, 2012.

Case 3:11-cv-08175-GMS--DKD Document 10 Filed 02/16/12 Page 4 of 4