Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02487/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02487-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mirisa Ajanovic, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

O.F.F. Enterprises, Ltd., 

Defendant.

No. CV10-2487-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Mirisa Ajanovic commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint 

against Defendants on November 17, 2010. Doc. 1. Plaintiff has filed a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. 3. The Court will dismiss the complaint 

without prejudice and deny the motion as moot. 

I. Dismissal of the Complaint.

 In IFP proceedings, a district court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 

determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted[.]” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of § 1915 concerns prisoner litigation, § 1915(e) 

applies to all IFP proceedings. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(en banc). “Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) . . . allows a district court to dismiss[] sua sponte 

. . . a complaint that fails to state a claim[.]” Id. at 1130. “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. at 1127. A district court dismissing under 

Case 2:10-cv-02487-DGC Document 4 Filed 02/25/11 Page 1 of 4
‐ 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 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) “should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the 

pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by 

the allegation of other facts.” Id. at 1127-29 (citations omitted). 

 “[A] federal court may dismiss sua sponte if jurisdiction is lacking.” Fiedler v. 

Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78 (9th Cir. 1983); see Franklin v. Or. State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 

1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) (same). Plaintiffs must provide a statement of the grounds for 

the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (“A pleading . . . shall 

contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction 

depends[.]”). The complaint alleges violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, but does 

not specify the statutory basis for jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Nor does the complaint assert that the parties are citizens of different states. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a). The Court accordingly will dismiss the complaint for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Franklin, 662 F.2d at 1343 (affirming 

sua sponte dismissal of claims that did not state a federal cause of action); Kokkonen, 511 

U.S. at 377 (courts must presume lack of jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise). 

 The Court also notes that the complaint attempts to address several different 

alleged wrongs in a single long paragraph. In any amended complaint, Plaintiff should 

set forth separate claims in separate counts, identifying the defendant or defendants who 

are alleged to be liable in each count. 

II. Leave to Amend the Complaint.

 “A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is 

absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” 

Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). In this case, 

Plaintiff could cure the jurisdictional defect by asserting claims under federal copyright 

and patent laws. See generally 17 U.S.C. §§ 501 and 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 et seq. The Court 

will dismiss the complaint without prejudice and allow Plaintiff to file an amended 

complaint that properly invokes this Court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall have until 

March 18, 2011 to file an amended complaint. 

Case 2:10-cv-02487-DGC Document 4 Filed 02/25/11 Page 2 of 4
‐ 3 ‐ 

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 

III. Plaintiff’s Obligations.

 Plaintiff 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”), which may be obtained in the Clerk of Court’s office. 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. Rule 8(e) 

provides that each such paragraph “shall be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(e)(1). The forms contained in the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – 

which include forms regarding jurisdictional statements and sample complaints on 

various causes of action – “are sufficient under the rules and are intended to indicate the 

simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules contemplate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 84. 

 The amended complaint must give Defendants fair notice of what Plaintiff’s 

claims are and the grounds upon which they are based. See Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 

671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005). This includes some factual basis for the claims and the specific 

legal theory supporting each claim. See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The amended 

complaint must also provide a clear statement of this Court’s jurisdiction and the relief 

Plaintiff seeks. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (3). 

 Plaintiff is further advised that if she fails to prosecute this action or comply with 

the rules or any Court order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to 

Rule 41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992). 

IV. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

 Because the complaint will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the Court will 

deny as moot Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff may file another 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis if she decides to file an amended complaint as 

Case 2:10-cv-02487-DGC Document 4 Filed 02/25/11 Page 3 of 4
‐ 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 

permitted by this order. Plaintiff is advised that his supporting financial affidavit must be 

complete. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. 

 2. Plaintiff has until March 18, 2011 to file an amended complaint. The 

Clerk shall terminate this action without further notice if Plaintiff fails to comply with 

this deadline 

 3. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is denied as moot. 

 Dated this 25th day of February, 2011. 

Case 2:10-cv-02487-DGC Document 4 Filed 02/25/11 Page 4 of 4