Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08062/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08062-0/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

John Russell King, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV09-8062-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendants the State of Arizona and Lou Pucko have filed a motion to dismiss

Plaintiff John Russell King’s first amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Dkt. #10.

Plaintiff opposes the motion. Dkt. #16. No party has requested oral argument. For reasons

that follow, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion. Dkt. #10.

I. Background.

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint alleges violation of his constitutional rights under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks injunctive relief and money damages of $10,000,000 for

Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful arrest and detention. Dkt. #8. When analyzing a complaint for

failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), “[a]ll allegations of material fact are taken as true

and construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Smith v. Jackson, 84

F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 1996). “To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint 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

Case 3:09-cv-08062-DGC Document 18 Filed 05/21/10 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

1

 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint only lists the State of Arizona as a Defendant in

the caption, but later refers to “Defendants.” See Dkt. #8 at 1-5. It is unclear whether

Defendant Lou Pucko is a Defendant in the first amended complaint. 

- 2 -

(9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “The

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

unlawfully,” demanding instead sufficient factual allegations to allow “the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, --- U.S. ---, ---, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

“[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere

possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has not ‘show[n]’ – ‘that the

pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id. at 1950 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).

II. Analysis.

Defendants make two primary arguments in support of their motion to dismiss:

(1) Arizona should be dismissed from the action to the extent that Plaintiff seeks monetary

damages, and (2) Plaintiff complaint fails to state facts that, if true, would support his claim

for relief. The Court agrees with both arguments.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot seek money damages against Arizona because

it is not a “person” subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, or 1986. Defendants

are correct. The United States Supreme Court has held “that neither a State nor its officials

acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Will v. Michigan Dept. of State

Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). As a result, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims

against the State with prejudice. Id.

Defendants also argue that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claims because he has

failed to state a claim for relief. The Court agrees. Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any

factual allegations. See Dkt. #8. Plaintiff makes broad assertions that the conduct of

Defendants was unconstitutional, but it is unclear who the Defendants are in this case or what

they are alleged to have done that was unconstitutional.1

 A complaint must give each

Defendant fair notice of the nature of Plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it is

Case 3:09-cv-08062-DGC Document 18 Filed 05/21/10 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 -

based. Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005). “Threadbare recitals of the

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Because Plaintiff’s first amended complaint contains nothing more

than conclusory statements without any factual support, the Court must dismiss it.

III. Leave to Amend.

Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. “Dismissal

with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear . . . that the

complaint could not be saved by amendment.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316

F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). In this case, it is not clear that Plaintiff’s complaint cannot

be cured by amendment. As a result, the Court will grant Plaintiff until June 18, 2010 to file

an amended complaint. The amended complaint shall not contain any § 1983 claim for

money damages against the State of Arizona as the Court has dismissed that claim with

prejudice.

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 “shall contain (1) a short and

plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, . . . (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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). These pleading

requirements shall be set forth in separate and discrete paragraphs. The paragraphs must be

numbered in consecutive order. Each paragraph must be “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

Plaintiff is advised that vague references are insufficient to satisfy the pleading

requirements of Rule 8. The amended complaint must give each Defendant “fair notice of

what [Plaintiff’s] claim is and the grounds upon which it is based.” Holgate, 425 F.3d at 676.

This includes some factual basis for each claim asserted and the specific legal theory

supporting the claim. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported

by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.

Case 3:09-cv-08062-DGC Document 18 Filed 05/21/10 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 -

Plaintiff also 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”). See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Pro se litigants

must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790

F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants “should not be treated more favorably than

parties with attorneys of record”); Carter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006,

1008 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Although pro se, [plaintiff] is expected to abide by the rules of the

court in which he litigates.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available at the

following Internet website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/. A copy of the Court’s

Local Rules of Civil Procedure may be obtained from the Clerk’s Office.

If Plaintiff fails to prosecute this action, or if he fails to comply with the rules or any

Court order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th

Cir.1992); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #10) is granted.

2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by June 18, 2010.

3. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by June 18, 2010, the Clerk of

Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08062-DGC Document 18 Filed 05/21/10 Page 4 of 4