Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00885/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00885-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Carey M. Baca, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Steven R. Callahan, Lisa M. Callahan,

Keith M. Baca; SRC Sundance, LLC;

Unknown Parties named as Does 1thru

100, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-885-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court

Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Dkt. # 4), which will be granted. The Court will screen

Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) before it is allowed to be served.

Pursuant to that screening Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

I. Screening Complaint Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

A. Legal Standards

1. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

Congress provided with respect to in forma pauperis cases that a district court “shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that the “allegation of poverty is untrue”

or that the “action or appeal” is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of § 1915 outlines how prisoners can file

Case 2:10-cv-00885-GMS Document 6 Filed 05/05/10 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 -

proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings

not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). “It

is also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an

in forma pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious. If the

Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se

litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before the dismissal of the action.

See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

The Court should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type

of advice “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v.

Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n. 13 (declining to decide

whether the court was required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff’s Complaint

will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend because, although it

appears unlikely, it may be possible for Plaintiff to assert claims that are appropriately

brought in federal court. 

II. The Complaint

In his Complaint, on which he has obviously spent some time and care, Plaintiff sues

Steven R. Callahan, Lisa M. Callahan, Keith M. Baca, SRC Sundance, LLC, and Unknown

parties. In it, the Plaintiff alleges that he brings the action pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983

for the conspiracy of the Defendants to deprive him of a constitutionally protected property

interest. Plaintiff then lists a number of Arizona criminal and civil statutes and apparently

claims that the Defendants have violated those statutes. He further asserts pendent state law

claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, civil conspiracy, conversion,

intentional interference with business advantage, intentional infliction of emotional distress,

and a request for compensatory and punitive damages.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

III. Failure to State a Claim

Case 2:10-cv-00885-GMS Document 6 Filed 05/05/10 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 -

A. Jurisdiction

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

neither be disregarded or 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 subject matter

jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”)

Plaintiff’s Complaint bases its claim to federal question jurisdiction on the civil rights

statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute grants relief to Plaintiffs for actions by any person

“who, under color of any” state law deprives the Plaintiff of a constitutional right. To have

acted under the color of state law, however, the defendants must have “exercised power

possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed

with the authority of state law.” Forbes v. Rhode Island Broth. Of Correctional Officers, 923

F. Supp. 315 (D.R.I. 1996). Thus, the Plaintiff must show in this case that the Defendants

were agents of the state, meaning they acted on behalf of the state, in depriving him of his

constitutional rights. This Plaintiff has not done. The Complaint only credibly alleges that

the Defendants were acting on their own behalf, and not on behalf of or with the authority

of any state entity in defrauding Plaintiff. Thus, the Complaint has not adequately alleged

any basis to conclude that a federal court may decide Plaintiff’s case. 

The Plaintiff, while asserting pendent state law claims, makes no effort to argue that

this Court has diversity jurisdiction over his claims against the Defendant. A review of the

Complaint suggests that Plaintiff and at least some of the Defendants share the same state of

domicile. Thus, diversity jurisdiction also does not appear to provide a basis for Plaintiff’s

claims to be brought against the Defendants in federal court. Thus, Plaintiff must amend his

Complaint to assert a basis for federal jurisdiction or seek to bring his claims against

Defendants in another court. 

IV. Leave To Amend

Case 2:10-cv-00885-GMS Document 6 Filed 05/05/10 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 -

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state

a claim. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint to cure the

deficiencies outlined above. Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that

it is the “First Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or

rewritten in its entirety and may not incorporate any part of the original Complaint by

reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. Should Plaintiff fail to file a First

Amended Complaint within 30 days, the Clerk may dismiss this action without prejudice and

without further notice from the Court. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District

Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Dkt. # 4) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) Plaintiff’s

Complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8, with leave to file an Amended

Complaint by June 4, 2010.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects not to file an Amended

Complaint by June 4, 2010, the Clerk shall dismiss this action without further Order of the

Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects to file an Amended Complaint,

the Complaint may not be served until and unless the Court screens the Amended Complaint

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

DATED this 5th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00885-GMS Document 6 Filed 05/05/10 Page 4 of 4