Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00721/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00721-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Rick Alton Foley, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CSO II Peji, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 13-0721-PHX-SMM (JFM) 

 O R D E R 

On April 10, 2013, Plaintiff Rick Alton Foley, who is confined in the Arizona 

State Prison Complex-Florence, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an August 16, 2013 

Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint 

because Plaintiff had failed to comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4. The Court 

gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified 

in the Order. 

 On September 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. In an April 

16, 2014 Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint because Plaintiff had 

failed to comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 

days to file a second amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the 

Order. 

. . . . 

Case 2:13-cv-00721-SMM--JFM Document 24 Filed 12/22/14 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 

 On April 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “Response” (Doc. 16) to the April 16, 2014 

Order. On May 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “Notice and Pleading of Failure to Comply 

with Order of Extension” (Doc. 18) and a “Third Request for an Extension” (Doc. 19). 

On June 17, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (Doc. 

20). On July 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 22). Because 

the Second Amended Complaint also fails to comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 

3.4, the Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint 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). 

 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 

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

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

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 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. Thus, although a plaintiff’s 

specific factual allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must 

Case 2:13-cv-00721-SMM--JFM Document 24 Filed 12/22/14 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 

assess whether there are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id.

at 681. 

 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, 

courts must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 

342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less 

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 

II. Second Amended Complaint 

 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 provided with the court-approved civil rights complaint form states that a 

plaintiff may only allege “one violation per count.” (Emphasis in original.) It is not the 

responsibility of the Court to review a rambling narrative in an attempt to determine the 

number and nature of a plaintiff’s claims. 

 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and concludes 

that it fails to comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4. In his four-count 

Complaint, Plaintiff sues forty-seven Defendants. Although his Complaint is divided into 

four counts, Plaintiff alleges more than four violations of his constitutional rights. For 

example, Count One contains twenty-one separately numbered paragraphs and appears to 

allege multiple acts of retaliation by multiple defendants between November 2010 and 

April 2014. Similarly, Count Two contains eleven paragraphs also alleging multiple 

instances of alleged retaliation. 

 In addition, Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and conclusory, and the Court is 

unable to ascertain which alleged injuries relate to which of the alleged instances of 

retaliation. Once again, the Court cannot meaningfully review Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a), and, therefore, the Court 

will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and this action. 

Case 2:13-cv-00721-SMM--JFM Document 24 Filed 12/22/14 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 

IV. Dismissal without Leave to Amend

 Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4 in 

his Second Amended Complaint, the Court will dismiss his Second Amended Complaint. 

“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. 

 Plaintiff has made three efforts at crafting a viable complaint and appears unable 

to do so despite specific instructions from the Court. The Court finds that further 

opportunities to amend would be futile. Therefore, the Court, in its discretion, will 

dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 22) and this action are 

dismissed for failure to comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4, and the Clerk of 

Court must enter judgment accordingly. 

 (2) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the 

dismissal for failure to comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4 may count as a 

“strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 2:13-cv-00721-SMM--JFM Document 24 Filed 12/22/14 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 

 (3) 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 19th day of December, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00721-SMM--JFM Document 24 Filed 12/22/14 Page 5 of 5