Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00324/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00324-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Review Agency Decision

---

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

Tara K A Eivers,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Arizona Department of Administration, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-20-00324-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (Doc. 2), which the Court hereby grants. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s

complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)1 before it is allowed to be served. 

Pursuant to that screening, the complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. 

I. Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a complaint is subject to dismissal if it contains 

claims that are “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted,” or that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. Additionally, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must 

contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 

relief.” Id. Although Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands 

more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. 

1 Although section 1915 largely concerns prisoner litigation, section 1915(e) applies 

to all in forma pauperis proceedings. Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”).

Case 2:20-cv-00324-DWL Document 6 Filed 02/14/20 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

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 assess whether there 

are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681.

The Ninth Circuit has instructed that courts must “construe pro se filings liberally.” 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se litigant] 

‘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)). Conclusory and vague 

allegations, however, will not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. 

of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). A liberal interpretation may not supply 

essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled. Id.

II. Analysis

As a preliminary matter, Pedro O. Camarena, a non-lawyer, cannot represent 

Plaintiff in this lawsuit. “[A] non-lawyer “has no authority to appear as an attorney for 

others than himself.” Johns v. Cty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Having a fiduciary relationship of some sort does not alter this basic tenet. Id. To the 

extent Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, she must hire an attorney or represent 

herself.

Furthermore, the complaint cannot be served in its current state. The complaint is 

a garbled collection of handwritten documents, forms with handwritten notes on them, and 

other attachments. All handwritten portions are cramped and styled all in capital letters, 

Case 2:20-cv-00324-DWL Document 6 Filed 02/14/20 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

such that it is very difficult to read. Far from being a “short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint 

involves scattered, rambling statements—blending alleged facts, opinions, legal 

conclusions, and legal citations without any cohesion or organizational structure, such that 

it is impossible to discern what happened. There is no way to determine what causes of 

action are being raised, against which defendants, for what conduct. Rule 8 requires 

“simplicity, directness, and clarity,” such that each defendant should easily be able to 

determine “what he is being sued for.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 

1996).

The Court will dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. “Dismissal of a pro se 

complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies 

of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 

1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint must adhere to all portions of Rule 7.1 of the Local 

Rules of Civil Procedure (“LRCiv”). Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that the amended 

complaint must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Specifically, the amended complaint shall contain a short and plain statement 

of the grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of 

each specific claim asserted against each Defendant, and a good faith demand for the relief 

sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). These pleading requirements are to be set forth in 

separate and discrete numbered paragraphs, and “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, 

and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) (“A party must state its 

claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single 

set of circumstances.”). Where a complaint contains the factual elements of a cause, but 

those elements are scattered throughout the complaint without any meaningful 

organization, the complaint does not set forth a “short and plain statement of the claim” for 

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

Finally, the Court orders that the complaint must be typed or legibly handwritten, 

Case 2:20-cv-00324-DWL Document 6 Filed 02/14/20 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

using proper conventional use of uppercase and lowercase letters. To be clear, the Court 

will not require perfection—just a general attempt at using capital letters only where they 

are appropriate.

Plaintiff is advised that if the amended complaint fails to comply with the Court’s 

instructions explained in this Order, the action may be dismissed pursuant to 

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)). Given 

this specific guidance on pleading requirements, the Court is not inclined to grant Plaintiff

leave to file another amended complaint if the first amended complaint is found to be 

deficient. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal 

with prejudice where district court had instructed pro se plaintiff regarding deficiencies in 

prior order dismissing claim with leave to amend); Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 

866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend 

is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.”).

Plaintiff is directed to become familiar with the Local Rules and the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure and is reminded that the Federal Court Self-Service Clinic provides free 

civil legal help to self-represented litigants. (See Notice to Self-Represented Litigant, Doc. 

5 at 7.)

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Application to Proceed in District Court without 

Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed with 

leave to file an amended complaint by March 13, 2020. The amended complaint must 

adhere to LRCiv 7.1.

///

///

///

Case 2:20-cv-00324-DWL Document 6 Filed 02/14/20 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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint 

by March 13, 2020, the Clerk of Court shall terminate the action.

Dated this 14th day of February, 2020.

Case 2:20-cv-00324-DWL Document 6 Filed 02/14/20 Page 5 of 5