Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00802/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00802-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Damon Kizzee, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Walmart, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0802-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint on April 12, 2010.

Dkt. #1. Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on April 12, 2010,

which the Court denied because Plaintiff’s initial complaint failed to state a claim on which

relief can be granted and failed to assert subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. #5. The Court

granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint and re-file his IFP motion. Id. On May 3,

2010, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a renewed motion for IFP. Dkt. ##6, 7. The

Court will dismiss the complaint with leave to amend and deny the IFP motion without

prejudice.

In IFP proceedings, a district court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court

determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted[.]” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). “Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) . . . allows a district court to dismiss[] sua

sponte . . . a complaint that fails to state a claim[.]” Id. at 1130. “It is also 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.” Id. at 1127. A district court dismissing under

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) “should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading

Case 2:10-cv-00802-DGC Document 8 Filed 05/14/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation

of other facts.” Id. at 1127-29 (citations omitted).

A complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “The plausibility standard . . .

asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully,” demanding

instead sufficient factual allegations to allow “the court to draw the reasonable inference that

the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949

(2009). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere

possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has not ‘show[n]’ – ‘that the

pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id. at 1950 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).

Plaintiff’s complaint does not satisfy these pleading requirements. As before, the

complaint describes various altercations Plaintiff had with different Walmart employees,

apparently while he worked for Walmart. Dkt. #6 at 2-4. On the first page, Plaintiff states

that his claims are brought based on “discrimination in the employment on the basis of race,”

but Plaintiff fails to explain anywhere in his factual narrative how Walmart discriminated

against him on the basis of race. Id. at 1. On the first page, Plaintiff also alleges that his

claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1988, but fails to explain

exactly what actions Walmart is alleged to have taken that would amount to liability under

these statutes.

As the Court explained in its previous order, a complaint must give a defendant fair

notice of the plaintiff’s claims and the grounds upon which they are based. Holgate v.

Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff’s complaint fails to give Walmart fair

notice of his claims – what exactly he claims Walmart did wrong – and the grounds upon

which each claim is based. Plaintiff’s complaint also fails to plead facts that “permit the

court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.

The Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have until

June 4, 2010 to file an amended complaint. For purposes of the amended complaint,

Plaintiff is directed to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) provides that

Case 2:10-cv-00802-DGC Document 8 Filed 05/14/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

a complaint “shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the

court’s jurisdiction depends, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader

seeks.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). These pleading requirements shall be set forth in separate and

discrete paragraphs. The paragraphs must be numbered in consecutive order. Each

paragraph must be “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

Plaintiff is advised that vague references to federal statutes, such as 42 U.S.C. §

2000e, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988 are insufficient to satisfy

the pleading requirements of Rule 8. The amended complaint must give each Defendant “fair

notice” of exactly what each of Plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon which each

individual claim is based. Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005). This

includes some factual basis for each individual claim asserted and the specific legal theory

supporting the claim. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported

by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.

If Plaintiff fails to prosecute this action, or if he fails to comply with the rules or any

Court order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th

Cir.1992); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. #6) is dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff shall have until June 4, 2010 to file an amended complaint.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed informa pauperis (Dkt. #7) is denied without

prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file the motion if he files an amended complaint.

3. The Clerk is directed to terminate this matter without further notice of Court

if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order.

DATED this 14th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00802-DGC Document 8 Filed 05/14/10 Page 3 of 3