Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01854/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01854-0/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

William Crittenden, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Murphy; Barth; McNeelans; Bishops; et

al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-1854-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises on the Court’s review of the file. Pursuant to the Rules of

Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (“Local Rules” or

“LRCiv”) 3.8(a), effective December 1, 2011, this civil action has been assigned to the

undersigned United States Magistrate Judge.

I. Background

On August 31, 2012, pro se Plaintiff filed a 31-page Complaint against, at least,

47 defendants, including three judges, numerous individuals, businesses, the National

Football League, municipalities, several state counties, and federal governmental

agencies, alleging claims and issues that are wholly incomprehensible, illogical, and

fanciful. (Doc. 1) For example, Plaintiff, apparently an El Paso, Texas resident, writes

immediately following the Complaint’s caption:

Plaintiff’s efforts dedicated to the HERO AGENT OF THE SIS, HERO OSSer, to

Rick who died of the consequences while trying to help the ptf., and to the HERO

Sunday School Teacher of Clearlake; for the forces of light against those of

darkness typified by the scowl of the “lead devil worshiper next door”, when he

heard a ditty played on the French horn:

Case 2:12-cv-01854-FJM Document 6 Filed 09/10/12 Page 1 of 11
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 -

JESUS LOVES THE LITTLE CHILDREN

ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE WORLD

RED AND YELLOW BLACK OR WHITE

THEY ARE EQUAL IN HIS SIGHT

JESUS LOVES THE LITTLE CHILDREN

OF THE WORLD

(Id. at 1) The Complaint then repeats the caption and states to the right of a second caption:

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

CRIMES AGAINST PEACE & CHILDREN

§ 21 CAUSE & EFFECT/HOLOCAUST LOGIC

2000 DRUG TERRORISM ACT

(Id. at 2) 

After an “Introduction,” Plaintiff alleges 

[t]his Complaint is advanced against the justice department (JD) on the problem of

repeated attempts to “hide the drug using judge”, which is again relevant to other

recent events before HONORABLE COURTs. The allegation is as significant now

as it was when ptf [plaintiff] was suing in San Francisco when HON. Chief Magistrate

Larson (1) had no real concern for the ptf, but advanced for his own cause, or that of

the JD when he assumed the ptf’s complaint, and when it had already been assigned

to one of the believed drug users (). . . Ptf has repeated described the problems

encountered with the “tall judge” on leaving the court house, . . . (2) this being when

ptf observed the mania of the repeatedly described “tall judge” on two significant

occasions. . . .

(Id. at 4-5) The Court speculates that Plaintiff is a disgruntled litigant who presumably had

case-related dealings with the Hon. (ret.) James L. Larson, former Chief U.S. Magistrate

Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which is located

in San Francisco. See James Larson, Daily Journal, Ryne Hodkowski, September 7, 2012.

While seemingly accusing him of illicit drug usage yet not specifically naming him in the

caption, the Complaint fails to allege what Judge Larson, or the other defendant judges for

that matter, did or failed to do that allegedly caused damage or injury to Plaintiff. 

Toward the end of the Complaint, the wherefore or demand clause itemizes seven

unintelligible and rambling statements, which are not specific requests for judicial relief. (Id.

at 29-31) Even crediting pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint to the less stringent standard than those

Case 2:12-cv-01854-FJM Document 6 Filed 09/10/12 Page 2 of 11
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 -

prepared by attorneys, Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Haines

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)), the Complaint is wholly irrational and

incomprehensible. Moreover, there is no allegation that the District Court of Arizona has

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s “claims” or that venue is proper in this District.

On August 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed a completed and signed Application to Proceed

in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (Doc. 2) The Court issued a Notice of

Assignment and Order, directing Plaintiff to, among others, either voluntarily elect to

consent to the undersigned Magistrate Judge or proceed before a United States district

judge on or before Monday, September 17, 2012. (Doc. 4) 

II. Screening

In cases wherein a plaintiff is requesting to proceed in forma pauperis, a district court

is required to screen the complaint and must dismiss the case if the court determines that the

allegation of poverty is untrue, 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 § 1915 outlines how

prisoners can file proceedings in forma pauperis, § 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis

proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners.” Long v. Maricopa Cmty. College Dist., 2012

WL 588965, at *1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 22, 2012) (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.

7 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[s]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints[.]”); see also

Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”) (citation omitted). “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.” Long, 2012 WL 588965, at *1. 

Section 1915(e)(2) provides that the district court “shall dismiss a case at any time if

it determines that . . . the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who

is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint must be dismissed for

Case 2:12-cv-01854-FJM Document 6 Filed 09/10/12 Page 3 of 11
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 -

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted “if it appears beyond a doubt that

the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief.”

Buckey v. County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992). A complaint is frivolous

if it is based on a nonexistent legal interest or delusional factual scenario. Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 327-30 (1989); Muhammad v. Phoenix Police Dept., 2008 WL 447523, at *1

(D. Ariz. Feb. 14, 2008). Moreover, a “finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when

the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not

there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504

U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (dismissal also appropriate when the facts alleged are “clearly baseless,”

“fanciful,” “fantastic,” and/or “delusional.”); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,

1228 (9th Cir. 1984). A complaint is “frivolous” within the meaning of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)

only if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. “To this end, the

statute accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably

meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual

allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Id. at

328. “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).

III. Jurisdiction

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction[,]” and “[i]t is presumed that an

cause lies outside[]” the jurisdiction of federal courts unless proven otherwise. Kokkonen v.

Guardian Life Ins. Co. 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “The party asserting jurisdiction has the

burden of proving all jurisdictional facts.” Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d

1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). “To overcome that presumption at the pleading

stage, the plaintiff must provide a ‘short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction.’” Quantum Information Specialists v. U.S. Government, 2011 WL 2693959, at

*1 (D. Ariz. July 12, 2011) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1)).

Generally speaking, federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over all civil

Case 2:12-cv-01854-FJM Document 6 Filed 09/10/12 Page 4 of 11
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 -

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, 28 U.S.C. §

1331, or actions between citizens of different states. See U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2; Caterpillar

Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 67-68 (1996) (“The Constitution provides, in Article III, § 2, that

“[t]he judicial Power [of the United States] shall extend . . . to Controversies . . . between

Citizens of different States.”). For a case to “arise under” federal law, a complaint must

establish “either that federal law creates the cause of action or that plaintiff’s right to relief

necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax

Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). For a

federal court to have diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed the sum

of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and the action must be between citizens of

different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity

between the parties - each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each

plaintiff.” In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig., 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). “[A]

party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual

citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner–Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th

Cir. 2001) (citing Whitmire v. Victus Ltd. t/a Master Design Furniture, 212 F.3d 885, 887

(5th Cir. 2000) (“[I]n a diversity action, the plaintiff must state all parties’ citizenships such

that the existence of complete diversity can be confirmed.”) (citation omitted). Federal

“jurisdiction may not be plead on information and belief.” Lieberman & Assocs. v. GVSW

Surprise Plaza LLC, 2009 WL 1476996, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 26, 2009) (citation omitted).

IV. Failure to State a Claim

The Court advises Plaintiff that although a pro se’s pleadings may be held to a less

stringent standard than those prepared by attorneys, Rand, 154 F.3d at 957 (citing Haines v.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)), pro se litigants must “abide by the rules of the court

in which he litigates.” Carter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th

Cir. 1986). Moreover, pro se litigants “must meet certain minimal standards of pleading.”

Ticktin v. C.I.A., 2009 WL 976517, at *4 (D. Ariz. April 9, 2009) (citation). A pro se

Case 2:12-cv-01854-FJM Document 6 Filed 09/10/12 Page 5 of 11
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 - 6 -

“complaint that . . . fails to plainly and concisely state the claims asserted . . . falls short of

the liberal and minimal standards set out in Rule 8(a).” Id. (citation omitted).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to include “a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. While Rule 8

does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned,

the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. In other words, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide

the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a

formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s elements will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to

relief above the speculative level . . . .” (Id.)

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550

U.S. at 570). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a

context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and

common sense.” Id. at 679 (citation omitted). “But where 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.’ Fed. Rule Civ. Proc.

8(a)(2).” Id.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and (d), Fed.R.Civ.P., provide:

(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the

court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief; and

Case 2:12-cv-01854-FJM Document 6 Filed 09/10/12 Page 6 of 11
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 - 7 -

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or

different types of relief.

* * * * * 

(d) Pleading to Be Concise and Direct; Alternative Statements; Inconsistency.

(1) In General. Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. No

technical form is required.

* * * * * 

Rule 8, Fed.R.Civ.P.

 Thus, Rule 8(a), after Twombly and Iqbal, requires a short and plain statement

providing factual evidence that logically leads to a plausible claim for relief against each

defendant. The Complaint completely fails to comply with Rule 8(a) in this regard.

V. Leave to Amend

Leave to amend a complaint should be freely given when justice so requires.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). In the Ninth Circuit, a pro se litigant must be given leave to amend

“unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by

amendment.” Marinov v. Fed. Nat’l. Mortg. Ass’n, 2012 WL 136003, at *3 (D. Ariz. Jan. 18,

2012) (citing Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988)); see also

Schrock v. Fed. Nat’l. Mortg. Ass’n, 2011 WL 3348227, at *9 (D. Ariz. Aug. 3, 2011)

(quoting Lopez, 203 F.3d at 127). It is not “absolutely clear” at this time that the deficiencies

in the pro se Complaint can not be cured by amendment to allege subject-matter jurisdiction

and sufficient factual allegations to support a plausible claim(s). A district court may not,

however, advise a pro se or any litigant how to cure pleading defects. This type of advice

“would undermine [trial] judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S.

225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n. 13 (declining to decide whether the

court was required to inform a litigant of deficiencies).

VI. Discussion

Simply stated, the Complaint fails to comply with several critical components of Rule

8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Initially, the Complaint’s thirty-one pages

Case 2:12-cv-01854-FJM Document 6 Filed 09/10/12 Page 7 of 11
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 - 8 -

hardly qualify as a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief” as required by Rule 8. The Court is unable to determine from the Complaint

precisely what causes of actions Plaintiff is alleging. The Complaint names many defendants,

but fails to state clearly what wrongs each defendant is alleged to have committed. As a

result, the Complaint, most certainly, fails to allege a viable claim upon which relief may be

granted against any defendant.

Substantively, the Complaint’s allegations fall into the categories of frivolous,

irrational, wholly incredible, and malicious. See, e.g., God v. Arizona State Univ., 2007 WL

1539324, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 24, 2007) (pro se plaintiff, God, claimed the defendant

university was infringing his copyright by using his “autobiography,” namely, “Bible,”

without paying plaintiff royalties was dismissed with prejudice as “both fanciful and

factually frivolous”) (citing Denton, 504 U.S. at 33) (dismissal appropriate when the facts

alleged are “clearly baseless,” “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional.”); Yacoub v. United

States, 2007 WL 2745386 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 20, 2007) (pro se complaint dismissed as

frivolous which alleged defendants “used toxic chemicals, telepathy, color coding, astral

bodies, electromagnetic waves, and other methods to control his mind and bodily

functions.”); King v. United States, 2006 WL 1375090 (W.D. Wash. May 18, 2006)

(dismissing as frivolous pro se plaintiff’s complaint alleging that he was a victim of “mind

torture via satellite technology” operated by the United States); Mercier v. United States Dist.

Court, 2006 WL 3751588 (D. Nev. Dec. 15, 2006) (dismissing as frivolous pro se plaintiff’s

claims that President Bush ordered the U.S. Army to fly helicopters over his house and office

and he was being bugged by aliens); McConnell v. Woods, 2006 WL 3782858 (D. Nev. Dec.

20, 2006) (dismissing as frivolous pro se plaintiff’s claims that plaintiff was kidnaped by

terrorists and the Charles Manson gang; her thirteen children were murdered and no police

investigation followed; her identity had been stolen, and the police were not using her correct

fingerprints.). 

The Complaint also appears to have been maliciously filed, if filed with the intention

Case 2:12-cv-01854-FJM Document 6 Filed 09/10/12 Page 8 of 11
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

 Two exceptions to the rule of judicial immunity exist. The first exception is that

judicial immunity does not shield “nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the judge's

judicial capacity.” Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11. The second exception is that judicial immunity

does not protect “actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all

jurisdiction.” Id. at 12.

- 9 -

or desire to harm Judge Larson and the other defendant judges to sully their reputation as

drug-using judges. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121. Moreover, because the Supreme Court has

held that judges generally enjoy immunity from suits seeking money damages,1

 the

Complaint fails to state a claim against Judge Larson and the other defendant judges. See

Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (collecting cases); Pryor-Kendrick v. Gunn, 2006 WL

3542922 (W.D. Ark. December 8, 2006); Azubuko v. Adams, 2005 WL 2415943 (N.D. Tex.

Sept. 29, 2005).

VII. Warning 

Plaintiff will be given a single opportunity, if he so chooses, to amend his Complaint

and file it by the deadline set later herein. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff must factually

state what rights he believes were violated against him or set forth the claims he has against

others in compliance with Rule 8(a), Twombly, and Iqbal. Each claim or cause of action must

be set forth in a separate count. The amended complaint must also state why the federal court

has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims and why venue is proper in this District Court. Any

amended complaint filed by Plaintiff must conform to the requirements of Rule 8(a) (and

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

Plaintiff is advised 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 v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal

with prejudice of amended complaint that did not comply with Rule 8(a)); see also Nevijel

v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673–74 (9th Cir. 1965) (affirming dismissal

Case 2:12-cv-01854-FJM Document 6 Filed 09/10/12 Page 9 of 11
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 - 10 -

without leave to amend second complaint that was “so verbose, confused and redundant that

its true substance, if any [was] well disguised”). 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).

An amended complaint supersedes any prior complaint. Ferdik , 963 F.2d at 1262;

Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After

amendment, the Court will treat any prior complaint as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

1262; Alexander v. Winn, 2012 WL 176499, at *3 (D. Ariz. Jan. 23, 2012).

 Because Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and his

allegations are frivolous, irrational, and wholly incredible, the Court will order Plaintiff to

file an amended complaint or this action will be dismissed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B).

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that if Plaintiff seeks to bring an amended complaint, the amended

complaint must be filed on or before Friday, September 28, 2012. The Complaint must

demonstrate subject-matter jurisdiction on its face, allege plausible claims upon which relief

may be granted against each defendant, be consistent with this order, set forth sufficient

specific facts regarding each party’s citizenship and domicile, and comply with the Local

Rules. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if unrepresented, shall

hereinafter comply with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona. The District’s Rules of Practice may be found on the District Court’s

internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/. All other rules may be found as

www.uscourts.gov/rules/.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if unrepresented, shall use

Case 2:12-cv-01854-FJM Document 6 Filed 09/10/12 Page 10 of 11
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 - 11 -

the above caption, number and initials until further order of the Court. 

Dated this 10th day of September, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-01854-FJM Document 6 Filed 09/10/12 Page 11 of 11