Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-03542/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-03542-0/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 

Tanya Winters, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

State of Arizona, 

Defendant.

No. CV16-3542 PHX DGC

ORDER 

Plaintiff Tanya Winters filed an amended complaint against the State of Arizona 

on November 28, 2016 (Doc. 8), pursuant to the Court’s Order (Doc. 7). The Court will 

screen Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff 

has also filed a motion to appoint pro bono counsel. Doc. 10. For the reasons stated 

below, the Court will dismiss the amended complaint and deny the motion to appoint pro 

bono counsel. 

I. Legal Standards.

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). Although much of § 1915 concerns prisoner litigation, § 1915(e) 

applies to all IFP proceedings. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(en banc). “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 this section “should grant leave to amend even if no 

Case 2:16-cv-03542-DGC Document 11 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

request to amend the pleading 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). 

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] pleading that 

states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). This short and plain statement 

“need not contain detailed factual allegations; rather, it must plead ‘enough facts to state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 

F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 

(2007)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“The plausibility 

standard . . . asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 

unlawfully”). Dismissal is appropriate where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal 

theory, lacks sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory, or contains 

allegations disclosing some absolute defense or bar to recovery. See Balistreri v. 

Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); Weisbuch v. Cnty. of L.A., 119 

F.3d 778, 783 n.1 (9th Cir. 1997). 

II. Amended Complaint. 

Although Plaintiff’s amended complaint contains more information than her 

original complaint, it still fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff 

alleges that the State of Arizona is “not distributing Federal taxes and therefore violating 

the Complainants Constitutional Rights.” Doc. 8 at 2. As a basis for jurisdiction, 

Plaintiff cites the Arizona state constitution, which is not a legitimate basis for 

jurisdiction in this Court. Id. at 1. Plaintiff appears to quote at length from a state 

criminal money laundering statute, but such a statute does not grant her a private right of 

action in federal court. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff fails to set forth any facts justifying her claim, 

and identifies no cognizable legal theory for this case. 

Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, the Court again will dismiss this 

action with leave to amend. The Court warns Plaintiff that a third failure to plead a claim 

will result in dismissal without leave to amend. 

Case 2:16-cv-03542-DGC Document 11 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

III. Leave to Amend and Plaintiff’s Obligations.

Plaintiff shall have until December 23, 2016 to file a second amended complaint. 

Plaintiff is advised that she must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of 

Arizona (“Local Rules”), which may be obtained in the Clerk of Court’s office. For 

purposes of the amended complaint, Plaintiff is directed to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint “must contain (1) a short and plain 

statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of 

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief 

sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). These pleading requirements should be set forth in 

separate and discrete paragraphs. Rule 8(d) provides that each such paragraph “must be 

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

The “short and plain statement of the claim” required by Rule 8(a)(2) must not 

only designate a cause of action, but must also include enough factual allegations to 

render the claim plausible. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. If Plaintiff chooses to file a second 

amended complaint asserting constitutional violations by federal or state officials, her 

pleading should include a statement of the constitutional rights Plaintiff believes to have 

been violated, how each right was violated, how each defendant contributed to the 

violation, and what injury was caused by each alleged constitutional violation. Such 

factual allegations must provide enough information to allow the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678. 

If Plaintiff fails to prosecute this action or to comply with the rules or any Court 

order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se 

plaintiff’s complaint for failing to comply with a court order). 

Case 2:16-cv-03542-DGC Document 11 Filed 12/05/16 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

IV. Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel.

There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v. Bd. 

of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court, however, 

does have the discretion to appoint counsel in Aexceptional circumstances.@ See 28 

U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Aldabe 

v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980). AA finding of exceptional circumstances 

requires an evaluation of both >the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of 

the petitioner to articulate his or her claim pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 

issues involved.=@ Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331(quoting Weygant v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 

954 (9th Cir. 1983)); see Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988). ANeither 

of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a 

decision on request of counsel@ under § 1915(e)(1). Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 

 Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. While 

Plaintiff has pointed to financial difficulties she is experiencing, such difficulties do not 

make her case exceptional. Accordingly, this case does not present Aexceptional 

circumstances@ requiring the appointment of counsel. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to 

appoint counsel where the plaintiff had sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to 

articulate his claim, the facts alleged and issues raised were not of substantial complexity, 

and it was not likely that he would succeed on the merits). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 8) is dismissed without prejudice. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel (Doc. 10) is denied.

3. Plaintiff shall have until December 23, 2016 to file a second amended 

complaint. 

 

Case 2:16-cv-03542-DGC Document 11 Filed 12/05/16 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 Clerk of Court shall terminate this action without further order of the 

Court if Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint by 

December 23, 2016. 

Dated this 5th day of December, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-03542-DGC Document 11 Filed 12/05/16 Page 5 of 5