Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02044/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02044-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

Sean Alex Roundtree; et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Jerry Colangelo; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-2044-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On November 6, 2012, the Court issued the following order:

Sean Alex Roundtree filed a complaint in this case and moved to

proceed in forma pauperis. Before the Court will consider in forma pauperis

status, Mr. Roundtree will be required to cure, if possible, the following

deficiencies in his complaint.

I. Parties

 In his caption, Mr. Roundtree states he is suing on behalf of two

minors. In the body of the complaint, Mr. Roundtree suggests he is suing on

his own behalf in addition to on behalf of his two minor children. As to the

Defendants, in his caption, Mr. Roundtree names only Jerry Colangelo, using

an et al. designation for the remaining Defendants. The Clerk’s Office has

gone through the complaint and identified 49 different Defendants. However,

it is unclear to this Court whether Mr. Roundtree actually intended to name

them as Defendants. For example, on page 2, Mr. Roundtree prefaces his

description of paragraphs 5 and 6 with “Defendant” but not paragraphs 3 or 4.

Further, the numbers preceding each sentence are merely paragraph numbers

that continue through out the complaint, not specific “Defendant” numbers.

To clarify this confusion, Mr. Roundtree will be permitted leave to file

an amended complaint. Mr. Roundtree is advised that the CAPTION will

control which people and entities are parties to this case. Neither this Court,

nor the Clerk of the Court will read the complaint to discover who Mr.

Case 2:12-cv-02044-JAT Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Roundtree may think is a Plaintiff or a Defendant. Mr. Roundtree must name

each one separately and specifically in the caption, consistent with the Local

Rules.

II. Jurisdiction

The complaint alleges jurisdiction based on diversity. Doc. 1 at 8.

However, Mr. Roundtree has failed to identify the citizenship of all of the

parties. For example, he names Phoenix Suns Limited Partnership, but fails

to identify the citizenship of each of the partners. See Carden v. Arkoma

Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990). By way of further example, he

names Suns Legacy Holding L.L.C., but fails to identify the citizenship of

every member. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, L.P., 437

F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, to plead diversity jurisdiction, Mr.

Roundtree must properly plead the citizenship of each entity (the Court will

not undertake to advise Mr. Roundtree of how to plead the citizenship of every

possible entity he might choose to name in his amended complaint) and each

individual.

Accordingly, in the to-be-filed amended complaint referenced above,

Plaintiff must properly plead the citizenship of every Defendant. If Plaintiff

fails to plead the citizenship of every Defendant such that this Court can assess

its jurisdiction, this case will be dismissed without prejudice. See Belleville

Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th Cir.

2003) (“Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge’s first

duty in every case.”). 

III. Screening

Finally, before the Court allows a Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis,

the Court may screen the complaint. Specifically,

A. 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 section 1915

outlines how prisoners can file 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)("section 1915(e) applies to all in forma

pauperis complaints"). "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. Therefore,

this court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if it fails

to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious. 

"[A] complaint, containing both factual allegations and

legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis

either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

(1989). Furthermore, "a finding of factual frivolousness is

appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the

Case 2:12-cv-02044-JAT Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

irrational or wholly incredible, whether or not there are

judicially recognized facts available to contradict them."

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). "A case is

malicious if it was filed with the intention or desire to harm

another." Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.

2005). 

B. Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

A claim must be stated clearly enough to enable a

defendant to frame a responsive pleading. A complaint must

contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). "Each

averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1). A complaint having the factual elements

of a cause of action present but scattered throughout the

complaint and not organized into a "short and plain statement of

the claim" may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a).

Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir.

1988). 

In order to assist litigants to understand the Rule 8(e)

requirements that averments "be simple, concise, and direct,"

Rule 84 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

samples in an Appendix of Forms, which are "intended to

indicate the simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules

contemplate." McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.

1996). An example is Form 9 (Complaint for Negligence): 

1. Allegation of jurisdiction

2. On June 1, 1936, in a public highway

called Boylston Street in Boston, Massachusetts,

defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle

against plaintiff, who was then crossing said

highway.

3. As a result plaintiff was thrown down

and had his leg broken, and was otherwise

injured, was prevented from transacting his

business, suffered great pain of body and mind,

and incurred expenses for medical attention and

hospitalization in the sum of one thousand

dollars.

4. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment

against defendant in the sum of ____ dollars and

costs. 

Id. 

"This complaint fully sets forth who is being sued, for what

relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide

discovery. It can be read in seconds and answered in minutes."

Id. In addition, to satisfy Rule 8, each claim must be stated in

a separate count. Bautista v. Los Angeles, 216 F.3d 837, 840-41

(9th Cir. 2000). 

Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358205, *2-*3 (D. Ariz. 2005).

Case 2:12-cv-02044-JAT Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 3 of 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 -

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint against as many as 49 Defendants is 140

pages long consisting of 685 paragraphs. However, Plaintiff does not allege

facts against each particular Defendant. Instead, the complaint is basically a

very long narrative of various events in Mr. Roundtree’s life. Starting on page

133, Plaintiff attempts to list thirty-seven causes of action. See Doc. 1 at 133-

139. However, all each cause of action pleads is “Plaintiff incorporates and

re-alleges, by reference, all other paragraphs of this Complaint as more fully

set forth herein.” This is inadequate to meet Rule 8’s pleading standard as to

each Defendant and each cause of action.

Further, almost every paragraph includes some version of the following

statement: “Defendants have engaged in fraudulent concealment/constructive

fraud because Defendants misrepresent/conceal/omit.” See e.g. Doc. 1 at 33.

Such a statement is a legal conclusion, and inadequate to advise each

particular Defendant of the claim(s) against that particular Defendant.

Accordingly, in the to-be-filed amendment, Mr. Roundtree must plead his

claim(s) consistent with Rule 8’s pleading standard.

More specifically, Mr. Roundtree must:

make clear his allegations in short, plain statements with each

claim for relief identified in separate sections. In the amended

complaint, Plaintiff must write out the rights he believes were

violated, the name of the person who violated the right, exactly

what that individual did or failed to do, how the action or

inaction of that person is connected to the violation of Plaintiff's

rights, and what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of the

other person's conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-

72, 377 (1976). Each claim of an alleged violation must be set

forth in a separate count. Any amended complaint filed by

Plaintiff must conform to the requirements of Rules 8(a) and

[(d)(1)] of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Kennedy, 2005 WL 3358205, *3 (D. Ariz. 2005).

Further, like the Plaintiff in Kennedy,

Plaintiff is warned that if he elects to file an amended

complaint and if he fails to comply with the Court's

instructions explained in this order, the action will be

dismissed pursuant to section 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and/or

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See

McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177 (affirming dismissal with prejudice

of prolix, argumentative, and redundant amended complaint that

did not comply with Rule 8(a)); Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins.

Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981)(affirming dismissal

of amended complaint that was "equally as verbose, confusing,

and conclusory as the initial complaint"); Corcoran v. Yorty, 347 F.2d 222, 223 (9th Cir. 1965)(affirming dismissal without

leave to amend second complaint that was "so verbose, confused

and redundant that its true substance, if any, [was] well

disguised"). 

Kennedy, 2005 WL 3358205, *3 (D. Ariz. 2005) (emphasis added).

Case 2:12-cv-02044-JAT Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Roundtree is given leave to file an amended

complaint within 30 days to cure all the deficiencies identified above. If Mr.

Roundtree fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, or files an

amended complaint that does not cure these deficiencies, this case will be

dismissed. [footnote omitted].

Doc. 9.

Thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed, without prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied

as moot (Doc. 3).

DATED this 13th day of December, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-02044-JAT Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 5 of 5