Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01495/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01495-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

1

Plaintiff had sued an improper defendant and his Complaint and “Amended

Complaint” appeared to be nothing more than a discussion of Plaintiff’s prior lawsuits and

a request that the Court “review and or investigate the injustice done” and “grant the

requested relief (compensation) in each filed case.”

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Larry Lee Moore, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1495-PHX-GMS (JRI)

ORDER

In a January 18, 2012 Order, the Court, among others things, granted Plaintiff Larry

Lee Moore in forma pauperis status and dismissed his Complaint and “Amended Complaint”

for failure to comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4. The Court noted that there

were additional defects in Plaintiff’s Complaint and “Amended Complaint.”1

 The Court gave

Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint on a court-approved form.

On February 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a “Re-Filed Complaint” and attached to it a

“Cover Sheet.” In a February 14, 2012 Order, the Court dismissed the February 9th “ReFiled Complaint” because it did not comply with the Court’s January 18th Order, which

specifically instructed Plaintiff that the second amended complaint had to be retyped or

rewritten in its entirety on the court-approved form and could not incorporate any part of the

Complaint or “Amended Complaint” by reference. In addition, the Court noted that the

Case 2:10-cv-01495-GMS--JFM Document 31 Filed 04/11/12 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

2

Specifically, the Court noted that Section D of the court-approved form requires

Plaintiff to state “the constitutional or other federaal civil right that was violated” in each

count, identify the issue involved, state the facts supporting that count, and indicate how he

was injured. In addition, in the section for “Supporting Facts” for each claim, the form

requires Plaintiff to “[d]escribe exactly what each Defendant did or did not do that violated

your rights. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal authority or

arguments.” Plaintiff failed to follow these instructions. Instead, Plaintiff simply directed

the Court to “See: Original Filed Complaint.”

- 2 -

February 9th “Re-Filed Complaint” did not comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4

because the February 9th “Re-Filed Complaint” did not substantially comply with the

instructions provided with the court-approved form.2

 The Court gave Plaintiff “a final

opportunity to file a second amended complaint.”

On March 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed an “Original Complaint (Refiled)” (Doc. 30). The

Court will dismiss the March 19th “Original Complaint (Refiled)” and this action.

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised

claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a “short and plain statement

of the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8(d)(1) states that “[e]ach allegation must be

simple, concise, and direct.” A complaint having the factual elements of a cause of action

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). See Sparling v. Hoffman Constr.

Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir.

1996). 

. . . .

Case 2:10-cv-01495-GMS--JFM Document 31 Filed 04/11/12 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 -

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4 requires in part that “[a]ll complaints . . . by

incarcerated persons must be signed and legibly written or typewritten on forms approved

by the Court and in accordance with the instructions provided with the forms.” The

instructions state:

Local Rule of Civil Procedure (LRCiv) 3.4(a) provides that

complaints by incarcerated persons must be filed on the

court-approved form. The form must be typed or neatly

handwritten. The form must be completely filled in to the extent

applicable. . . . . If needed, you may attach additional pages, but

no more than fifteen additional pages, of standard letter-sized

paper. . . . .

If you are alleging more than three counts, you must provide the

necessary information about each additional count on a separate

page. . . . Remember that you are limited to a total of fifteen

additional pages. . . . .

You should follow these instructions carefully. Failure to do so

may result in your complaint being stricken or dismissed. . . . .

If you need more space, you may attach no more than fifteen

additional pages.

(emphasis in original). 

Plaintiff’s March 19th “Original Complaint (Refiled),” appears to contain seven

counts and includes exhibits and “questions” among its pages. It spans 103 pages and,

therefore, fails to comply with Rule 8 or Local Rule 3.4. Thus, the Court will dismiss the

March 19th “Original Complaint (Refiled).”

II. Dismissal without Leave to Amend

“Leave to amend need not be given if a complaint, as amended, is subject to

dismissal.” Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). The

Court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where Plaintiff has previously

been permitted to amend his complaint. Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States,

90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996). Repeated failure to cure deficiencies is one of the factors

to be considered in deciding whether justice requires granting leave to amend. Moore, 885

F.2d at 538. 

. . . .

Case 2:10-cv-01495-GMS--JFM Document 31 Filed 04/11/12 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 -

Despite multiple opportunities to do so, Plaintiff appears unable or unwilling to file

an amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this

Court’s Local Rules. The Court finds that further opportunities to amend would be futile.

Therefore, the Court, in its discretion, will dismiss Plaintiff’s March 19th “Original

Complaint (Refiled)” without leave to amend.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s March 19, 2012 “Original Complaint (Refiled)” (Doc. 30) and this

action are dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4. The Clerk of Court must

enter judgment accordingly.

(2) The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of this

decision would not be taken in good faith.

DATED this 11th day of April, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-01495-GMS--JFM Document 31 Filed 04/11/12 Page 4 of 4