Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00535/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00535-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eugene Soliz,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Micael Valenzuela, et al.,

Defendants. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 05-535 TUC DCB

ORDER

On September 9, 2005, Plaintiff commenced this suit against "Micael Valenzuela"

and "Radistor & Muffler." (document 1) However, according to the Affidavit of Service,

filed on September 13, 2005, the Defendants' true names are Richard Valenzuela and

Tucson Radiator & Muffler. (document 5) Unfortunately, the Defendants' names are not

the only sources of confusion in this case. 

A review of Plaintiff's complaint fails to reveal any basis for this Court's

jurisdiction. Rather, Plaintiff's complaint appears to be one for breach of contract brought

by one Arizona resident against another. Plaintiff's claim is not based on any federal

statute, nor does it raise any federal question. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Furthermore, while

Plaintiff's complaint does seek damages in the amount of $500,000.00, which would

satisfy the amount in controversy requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(b), there is no

diversity of citizenship upon which to base jurisdiction. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In

short, Plaintiff's complaint fails to set forth a basis for this Court's subject matter

jurisdiction.

Case 4:05-cv-00535-DCB Document 9 Filed 10/26/05 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

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the filing date of this Order to file an amended

complaint, clearly and concisely stating the claims for relief, and properly establishing

this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. See, Rule 8(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. The amended

complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety on a Court-approved form and may

not incorporate any part of the original complaint by reference. Any amended complaint

submitted by Plaintiff should be clearly designated as an amended complaint on the face

of the document. Plaintiff should take notice that if he fails to timely file an amended

complaint, the complaint and this action will be dismissed with prejudice, without

further notice to Petitioner. Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.

Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that all papers filed with the court "shall state

with particularity the grounds" for the relief sought. Rule 7(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. (emphasis

added). "[I]f the court can comprehend the basis of the motion and deal fairly with it,"

then the particularity requirement of Rule 7(b)(1) is considered satisfied. McGarr v.

Hayford, 52 F.R.D. 219, 221 (S.D. Cal. 1971). The complaint filed by Plaintiff is so

unintelligible and indecipherable that this Court cannot comprehend the basis of the

complaint nor fairly deal with it. Indeed, Plaintiff's complaint is "so confused, ambiguous,

vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised."

Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988) (citing Gillibeau v. City of

Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969)).

DATED this 25th day of October, 2005.

Case 4:05-cv-00535-DCB Document 9 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 2