Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01596/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01596-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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 

Sarah Nathreen Nakanwagi,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Tenet Healthcare Corporation, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-01596-PHX-JZB

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Sarah Nathreen Nakanwagi’s Application to 

Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2), which the Court will 

grant. However, as detailed below, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) 

for failure to comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The 

Court will allow Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. 

I. Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 

In Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, she declares 

under penalty of perjury that she is unable to pay the filing fee and other costs associated 

with this case. Plaintiff has presented financial information to support her Application. 

Given Plaintiff’s lack of significant income and assets, the Court will grant her 

Application. 

II. Screening of IFP Complaints 

a. Legal Standards 

 For cases proceeding in forma pauperis, Congress provided that a district court 

Case 2:15-cv-01596-DGC Document 8 Filed 11/16/15 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

“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); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 

1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that section 1915(e) applies to all in forma 

pauperis complaints, not merely those filed by prisoners). Accordingly, “section 1915(e) 

not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint 

that fails to state a claim.” Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. 

 Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that to state a claim for 

relief, a complaint must contain (1) “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the 

court’s jurisdiction,” (2) “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief,” and (3) “a demand for the relief sought.” The complaint also 

must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 

 Further, “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(d)(1). “In order to assist litigants to understand” this requirement, “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 statements which the rules 

contemplate.’” Kennedy v. Andrews, CV-05-2692-PHX-NVW, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

32518, at *2-3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 8, 2005) (quoting McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 

(9th Cir.1996)). Examples of different types of claims are contained in Forms 10 through 

21. 

 The complaint must also provide each defendant with a fair opportunity to frame a 

responsive pleading. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1176. Even where a complaint has the factual 

elements of a cause of action present but scattered throughout and not organized into a 

“short and plain statement of the claim,” the Court may dismiss the complaint for failure 

to satisfy Rule 8. Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Case 2:15-cv-01596-DGC Document 8 Filed 11/16/15 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

Dismissal of the complaint is appropriate if it is so “verbose, confused, and redundant 

that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.” Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 

426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969). 

 Additionally, Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that: 

A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances. A later pleading may refer by number to a paragraph in an earlier pleading. If 

doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence—and each defense other than a denial—must be 

stated in a separate count or defense. 

b. Plaintiff’s Complaint

In her Complaint, Plaintiff sues Tenet Healthcare Corporation, Russell K Pearce, 

the State of Arizona, and the United States of America. Although unclear, Plaintiff 

appears to assert numerous federal and state law claims against Defendants related to her 

alleged “forced sterilization” as a result of a doctor at Maryvale Hospital injecting her 

with “Toradol,” a “fertility-impairing drug.” 

However, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to comply with the pleading requirements in 

Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s Complaint is 

comprised of approximately 91 pages of confusing and conclusory narrative statements 

rather than specifically enumerated causes of action or identifiable legal theories relating 

to specific Defendants that support any claim of relief. Although Plaintiff provides 

numerous numbered lists of statutes and constitutional provisions throughout her 

Complaint, her verbose, circular, and confusing discussions of her claims throughout the 

Complaint make it impossible for the Court to discern what specific causes of action she 

asserts against each Defendant. Likewise, it is impossible for the Court to determine 

from the Complaint whether any of the alleged conduct is sufficient to state a claim over 

which this Court has jurisdiction. In sum, the Complaint fails to provide a “short and 

plain statement” of any claim. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 

in its entirety. 

Case 2:15-cv-01596-DGC Document 8 Filed 11/16/15 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

III. Leave to Amend 

The Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity, if she so chooses, to amend her 

Complaint to make clear her allegations. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 (when dismissing 

for failure to state a claim, “a district court 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”) (quoting Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 

494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)). In the amended complaint, Plaintiff must write out, in short, 

plain statements, (1) the rights she believes were violated, (2) the name of the person or 

entity who violated each right, (3) exactly what that individual or entity did or failed to 

do, (4) how the action or inaction of that person or entity is connected to the violation of 

each right, and (5) what specific injury was suffered because of the other person’s or 

entity’s conduct. 

Plaintiff is warned that if she elects to file an amended complaint and if she fails to 

comply with the Court’s instructions explained in this Order or the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, 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 1180 

(affirming dismissal with prejudice of 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”). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court 

Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for 

failure to comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended 

complaint by December 16, 2015. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects to file an amended 

Case 2:15-cv-01596-DGC Document 8 Filed 11/16/15 Page 4 of 5
- 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 

complaint, the complaint may not be served until and unless the Court screens the 

amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects not to file an amended 

complaint by December 16, 2015, the Clerk shall dismiss this action without further 

order of this Court. 

 Dated this 16th day of November, 2015. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01596-DGC Document 8 Filed 11/16/15 Page 5 of 5