Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08027/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08027-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Stanley R. Waff, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Navajo County, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-8027-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (Doc. # 4) and Motion to Grant to Present Evidence (Doc. # 6). The Court has

screened Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and will dismiss it for

failure to state a claim. “[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to

dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original

claim, counter-claim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short

and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends,

unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds

of jurisdiction to support it, (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. Relief in the alternative or of several different

types may be demanded.

Case 3:10-cv-08027-MHM Document 11 Filed 02/24/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Here, Plaintiff merely lists a number of defendants followed by the incomprehensible

statement, “unjust, nonconstutional, opposieres unduly oppersiation [complaint].” As a

result, the Court cannot determine the nature of this lawsuit. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED striking Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to comply with Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). (Doc. #1)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in

Forma Pauperis. (Doc. # 4)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff's Motion to Grant to Present

Evidence. (Doc. # 6)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint in

compliance with Rule 8(a) no later than 30 days from the date of this order. If no Amended

Complaint is filed this case will be dismissed without further notice.

DATED this 21st day of February, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08027-MHM Document 11 Filed 02/24/10 Page 2 of 2