Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01417/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01417-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Donald Muhammad, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona; Greyhound Bus Lines, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1417-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On June 14, 2007, the Court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint under

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. The Court provided Plaintiff ten days to file an amended

complaint. In so doing, the Court admonished Plaintiff that any amended complaint must

comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by plainly setting forth the

claims against each Defendant and the bases of the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. The

Court further admonished Plaintiff that his failure to plainly set forth the bases of subject

matter jurisdiction would result in the dismissal of the amended complaint. 

On June 20, 2007, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. # 37) stating:

The State of Arizona treated Ms. Gaschler of Greyhound Lines,

Inc. differently! With out (sic) a sworn oath statements 1-13-

2005, 6-24-2005, at least to the Court, or this court CV 06-1417-

PHX-JAT. This interviwes (sic) of 1-13-2005 and 6-24-2005,

of Ms. Jennifer Gaschler when I ask was this or those interviwes

(sic) under sworn oaths statements, neather (sic) the state or

Greyhound Lines, Inc. Would answer this court, I would like

Case 2:06-cv-01417-JAT Document 39 Filed 06/28/07 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 -

this answer in the interrogatorie (sic) sworn oath statements

pleas (sic). Answer to Rule 8 and 12(b)(6). Rule § 8 and 8(a)

claims for relief, form or forms. A.R.S. § 12-821.01 Tony

Wilbur. Rule 12(b)(1). The jurisdiction - risk management 100

N. 15th Ave. Suite 301 PHX, AZ. 85007. Thair (sic) 60 days

investigation or more, should at least known that this was

deforemation (sic)? § 1983, 1985(3) 1986 and or 42 U.S.C.A. §

3617.

P.S. I was under a sworn oath on 28 day of Dec, 2004, Ms. Jesse

L. Cuilty I think, this is how you spell her name. Where is her's

Ms. Jennifer Gaschler under oath statement 1-13-2005, 6-24-

2005? See differently treated her. Wich (sic) you say or your

report says no sworn oath dilling (sic) whit (sic) Ms. Jennifer

Gaschler, then this should be deforemation (sic). Sents 10-28-

2005 affadavet (sic) sworn oath stamtments (sic).

In Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358295 (D. Ariz. 2005), the court dismissed an

in forma pauperis plaintiff's complaint that the court found to be "44 pages of disconnected

facts and narratives, legal phrases, vituperation, innumerable state and federal statutory

citations, and requests for expansive and obscure relief." Kennedy, 2005 WL 3358295, * 1.

In dismissing the complaint, the Kennedy court considered the obligations imposed upon it

by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), stating:

Congress provided with respect to in forma pauperis cases that

a district court "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). While much of section 1915 outlines how

prisoners can file proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e)

applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings, not just those filed

by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.

2000)("section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis

complaints"). "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. Therefore,

this court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if it fails

to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious. 

"[A] complaint, containing both factual allegations and legal

conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either

in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

(1989). Furthermore, "a finding of factual frivolousness is

appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the

irrational or wholly incredible, whether or not there are

judicially recognized facts available to contradict them."

Case 2:06-cv-01417-JAT Document 39 Filed 06/28/07 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 -

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). "A case is

malicious if it was filed with the intention or desire to harm

another." Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.

2005).

Id. at * 2. The Kennedy court further considered the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, stating:

A claim must be stated clearly enough to enable a defendant to

frame a responsive pleading. A complaint must contain a "short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). "Each averment of a

pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct." Fed.R.Civ.P.

8(e)(1). A complaint having the factual elements of a cause of

action present but scattered throughout the complaint and not

organized into a "short and plain statement of the claim" may be

dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a). Sparling v. Hoffman

Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Id. 

Under Kennedy, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint again fails to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Amended Complaint fails to plainly set forth

the claims against each Defendant, including plainly setting forth the legal and factual bases

of each claim. The Amended Complaint also fails to plainly set forth the jurisdictional bases

supporting the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over any claims sought to be asserted. In

sum, the nonsensical nature of the Amended Complaint renders Defendants' framing of a

responsive pleading impossible. Accordingly, following Kennedy, the Court will dismiss

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff will be given an additional ten

days within which to file a second amended complaint. If Plaintiff elects to file a second

amended complaint, Plaintiff must allege as to each defendant a short and plain statement of

the claim or claims showing that he is entitled to relief. Plaintiff also must plainly set forth

the jurisdictional bases supporting the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over any claims

sought to be asserted. If Plaintiff again fails to comply with Rule 8, and thereby fails to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court will dismiss, pursuant to Rule

Case 2:06-cv-01417-JAT Document 39 Filed 06/28/07 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 -

8 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the second amended complaint without leave to further

amend. Plaintiff is directed to Rule 84 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which refers

to samples in an Appendix of Forms "intended to indicate the simplicity and brevity of

statement which the rules contemplate." 

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. # 37) is dismissed

without prejudice; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint

within ten days of this Order; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 38) is

DENIED in part and GRANTED in part consistent with this Order.

DATED this 26th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01417-JAT Document 39 Filed 06/28/07 Page 4 of 4