Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01539/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01539-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

Joyce Juniel, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Labcorp, Anasazi Internal Medicine,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV12-1539 PHX DGC

CV12-1540 PHX DGC

CV12-1541 PHX DGC

(Consolidated)

ORDER

Plaintiff Joyce Juniel has filed complaints against Defendants Labcorp and Anasazi

Internal Medicine. The complaints have been consolidated in this action, and the Court

granted in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status to Plaintiff. Docs. 6, 9. The Court has an obligation

to screen Plaintiff’s complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Because Plaintiff’s

complaints fail to state a jurisdictional basis for this action, the Court will dismiss them sua

sponte and grant leave to amend. Plaintiff’s other pending motions will also be denied.

I. Screening of Plaintiff’s Complaints.

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

Case 2:12-cv-01539-DGC Document 13 Filed 12/14/12 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 -

state a claim.” Id. at 1127. A district court dismissing under § 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).

Plaintiff’s complaints do not adequately allege subject matter jurisdiction as required

by Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “Federal courts are courts of limited

jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute[.]”

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Pursuant to federal

statutes, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case only if it arises under federal

law or the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different

states. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). The complaints do not explain why this Court has

subject matter jurisdiction. The Court will dismiss the complaints without prejudice.

Plaintiff shall have until January 4, 2013, to file a single amended complaint.

Plaintiff is advised that she 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 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. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a). These pleading requirements shall be set forth in separate and discrete

paragraphs. Rule 8(d) provides that each such paragraph “must be simple, concise, and

direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

The short and plain statement of the claim required by Rule 8(a)(2) must not only

designate a cause of action, but must also include enough factual allegations to render the

claim plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009) (“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

Case 2:12-cv-01539-DGC Document 13 Filed 12/14/12 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 -

entitled to relief.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Plaintiff’s amended complaint should

include a statement of the legal rights Plaintiff believes to have been violated, how each right

was violated, how each Defendant contributed to the violation, and what injury was caused

by each alleged violation. See Jimenez v. State of Arizona, No. CV-08-0892 (D. Ariz. May

22, 2008) (order dismissing with leave to amend). Such factual allegations must provide

enough information to “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

defendant[s are] liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1149.

II. Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel. Doc. 11. There is no constitutional right

to appointed counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d

266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court, however, does have the discretion to appoint counsel

in “exceptional circumstances.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789

F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980). “A

finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success

on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his or her claim pro se in light of

the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331(quoting Weygant

v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)); see Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th

Cir. 1988). “Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before

reaching a decision on request of counsel” under section 1915(e)(1). Wilborn, 789 F.2d at

1331.

Having considered both factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated a

likelihood of success on the merits or that any difficulty she is experiencing in attempting to

litigate her case is due to the complexity of the issues involved. Accordingly, this case does

not present “exceptional circumstances” requiring the appointment of counsel.

However, Plaintiff may contact the following organization to determine whether it

has an attorney available to represent Plaintiff pro bono or at a reduced rate:

Case 2:12-cv-01539-DGC Document 13 Filed 12/14/12 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 -

Volunteer Lawyers Program

305 South Second Avenue

P.O. Box 21538

Phoenix, Arizona 85036-1538

(602) 258-3434

III. Motions for Emergency Orders.

Plaintiff has filed two motions asking the Court to enter emergency orders preventing

Defendants from terminating her as a patient. Docs. 10, 12. The motions will be denied for

several reasons. First, as noted above, Plaintiff has not shown that this Court has jurisdiction

over her claim. Second, Plaintiff has not served Defendants as required by Rule 4(m) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Third, Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements of

Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for obtaining emergency injunctive relief.

IV. Warning.

If Plaintiff fails to prosecute this action or to comply with the rules or any Court order,

the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se plaintiff’s complaint for

failing to comply with a court order).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 11) is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s emergency motions preventing Defendants from terminating her as

a patient (Docs. 10, 12) are denied.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint(s) are denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a single

amended complaint on or before January 4, 2013.

DATED this 14th day of December, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-01539-DGC Document 13 Filed 12/14/12 Page 4 of 4