Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01514/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01514-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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 

Patrick E. Nixon and Jean-Marie Nixon,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Arizona Association of Manufactured 

Home Owners, Inc., 

Defendant.

No. CV-11-1514-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

Plaintiffs Patrick Nixon and Jean-Marie Nixon filed a complaint as pro-se litigants 

on August 3, 2011. Doc. 1. Defendant Arizona Association of Manufactured Home 

Owners, Inc. (“AAMHO”), also as pro-se litigant, filed an answer on October 4, 2011, 

requesting that the action be dismissed. Doc. 5 at 4. Defendant then secured counsel. 

Doc. 11. On November 21, 2011, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the 

pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Doc. 14. Plaintiffs filed a 

response on December 5, 2011 (Doc. 16), and Defendant replied on December 16, 2011 

(Doc. 20). In their response, Plaintiffs attached numerous exhibits and provided factual 

details not included in the original complaint. Doc. 16.

I. Legal Standards.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is assessed under the 

same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See

Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980). A complaint must plead “enough 

Case 2:11-cv-01514-DGC Document 23 Filed 02/09/12 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “The plausibility standard . . . asks for more than a sheer 

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully,” demanding instead sufficient factual 

allegations to allow “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 

liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). 

“[W]here 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 entitled to relief.’” Id. at 1950 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). 

In considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court cannot consider 

evidence outside the pleadings unless the Court treats the motion as a motion for 

summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). This Court will not treat 

the motion as one for summary judgment, and will not consider any material in Plaintiffs’ 

response not provided in the original complaint. 

Plaintiff’s complaint does not satisfy the pleading requirements set forth in 

Twombly and Iqbal. The only factual material provided in the complaint is Plaintiffs’ and 

Defendant’s addresses (Doc. 1 at ¶ 6, 9), that “Plaintiff, Patrick E. Nixon, is a male 

veteran with a disability” (id. at ¶ 7), and that “Plaintiff, Jean-Marie Nixon, is a Hispanic 

female with a disability” (id. at ¶ 8). The complaint does not allege the type of 

disabilities. The rest of the complaint includes conclusory allegations that the Defendant 

engaged in conduct that violates a laundry list of laws without providing any factual 

detail about what happened. The Court therefore will dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

II. Leave to Amend. 

In the Ninth Circuit, pro se litigants are “entitled to notice of the complaint’s 

deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.” Lucas v. 

Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995); see Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 

1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (same); see also Flowers v. First Hawaiian Bank, 295 F.3d 966, 976 

(9th Cir. 2002) (“We are very cautious in approving a district court’s decision to deny 

Case 2:11-cv-01514-DGC Document 23 Filed 02/09/12 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

pro se litigants leave to amend.”) (citing Lucas, 66 F.3d at 248-49); Waters v. Young, 

100 F.3d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1996) (“As a general matter, this court has long sought to 

ensure that pro se litigants do not unwittingly fall victim to procedural requirements that 

they may, with some assistance from the court, be able to satisfy.”). Although the 

deadline for amending pleadings established in the Court’s Case Management Order has 

passed, the Court will grant Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.

The Court is required to give guidance to a pro se plaintiff regarding the 

deficiencies of dismissed claims in a complaint. Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 

F.2d 621, 625 (9th Cir. 1988) (“We do not . . . require the district court to act as legal 

advisor to the plaintiff. . . . However, the court must do more than simply advise the pro 

se plaintiff that his complaint needs to [comply with Rule 8]. . . . The district court is 

required to draft ‘a few sentences explaining the deficiencies.’”) (citations omitted). 

For purposes of the amended complaint, Plaintiffs are directed to Rule 8 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint “shall contain (1) a 

short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, . . . 

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, 

and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

These pleading requirements shall be set forth in separate and discrete paragraphs 

numbered in consecutive order. Each paragraph must be “simple, concise, and direct.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 

 Plaintiff is advised that vague references to discrimination are insufficient to 

satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8. The amended complaint must provide the 

factual basis for each claim and give Defendant “fair notice of what [Plaintiff’s] claim is 

and the grounds upon which it is based.” Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 

2005). This includes the specific legal theory supporting the claim. “Threadbare recitals 

of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not 

suffice.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. The complaint must also show that Plaintiffs have 

complied with all required administrative proceedings. 

Case 2:11-cv-01514-DGC Document 23 Filed 02/09/12 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendants motion (Doc. 14) is granted. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs 

have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

2. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint on or before February 24, 2012. 

 Dated this 9th day of February, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-01514-DGC Document 23 Filed 02/09/12 Page 4 of 4