Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00940/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00940-0/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

Lawanda Denise Meabon, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV11-0940-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 3. For the reasons that follow, 

the Court will deny the motion. 

 Federal civil proceedings in forma pauperis are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Although the statute on its face applies to actions involving prisoners, this circuit has 

applied it to civil cases involving non-prisoners. E.g., Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & 

Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369-70 (9th Cir. 1987). An applicant for in forma pauperis status 

must credibly show that she in unable to pay court costs and that her action has merit. Id. 

A complaint that fails to state a claim lacks merit. Id. at 1370; see Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“It is . . . clear that section 1915(e) not only 

permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to 

state a claim.”). Pro se complaints must be construed liberally, and dismissals for failure 

to state a claim cannot be with prejudice unless it is absolutely clear amendment would 

be futile. Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370. The complaint in this case, construed liberally, fails 

Case 2:11-cv-00940-DGC Document 8 Filed 08/10/11 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 

to plead enough facts from which the Court may conclude Plaintiff has a plausible claim 

for relief. 

 As a threshold matter, the complaint is peppered in large part with formalistic 

language that appears to have little or no bearing on this case. The statutes under which 

the complaint appears to be brought, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, are criminal statutes. 

This is a civil complaint, however, and Plaintiff has not shown the cited statutes provide a 

civil remedy in light of the facts alleged. Plaintiff also invokes this Court’s admiralty 

jurisdiction, but fails to plead facts showing this jurisdiction is applicable. Plaintiff’s 

statements about debts and secured party creditor rights are confusing, as no facts have 

been pled alleging that any party has a debt. Moreover, Plaintiff’s statements about IRS 

1099-A forms are equally confusing, as no facts have been pled showing the relevance of 

these forms. The allegations that Plaintiff is a “foreign agent” acting for a “foreign state” 

appear to be frivolous. 

 The only colorable allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint appear to be that she was 

charged with driving on a suspended driver’s license, that she was acquitted, that these 

charges stemmed from racial profiling, and that there was a conspiracy to violate her 

constitutional rights. Doc. 1 at 3-4. Plaintiff may be trying to state a claim under 42 

U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, but she has not pled sufficient facts to state plausibly that the 

charges were racially-motivated or that there was an agreement to interfere with her civil 

rights. Assuming Plaintiff’s factual allegations are true – that she is part of a protected 

class, was charged with a traffic violation, and was acquitted of the charge – the Court 

has no factual basis from which to conclude that the arresting officers, the prosecutors, or 

other defendants acted as they did because of Plaintiff’s race, that race was a factor 

motivating the actions, or that there existed a conspiracy to interfere with Plaintiff’s civil 

rights. Nor does Plaintiff show how the alleged acts themselves – stopping a motorist 

suspected of driving with a suspended license – violated the constitution or federal law 

absent considerations of race. 

 The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice because the 

Case 2:11-cv-00940-DGC Document 8 Filed 08/10/11 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 

complaint fails to state a claim. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that contains 

clear facts stating what happened, why she believes that she was racially profiled or 

discriminated against, and what constitutional or statutory rights she believes were 

violated. To enhance the clarity of her allegations, Plaintiff should avoid using oldfashioned or formalistic language – short, plain statements of fact should be sufficient. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff may include references to the constitution, statutes, and 

other sources for rights she believes were violated. Plaintiff may have until 

September 9, 2011, to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff may also file a renewed 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis after filing the amended complaint. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied without 

prejudice. 

 2. Plaintiff shall have until September 9, 2011 to file an amended complaint. 

The Clerk shall terminate this action without further notice if Plaintiff fails to comply 

with this deadline. 

 Dated this 10th day of August, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-00940-DGC Document 8 Filed 08/10/11 Page 3 of 3