Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00003/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00003-1/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

Nicol A. Ybarra,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Buckeye Police Department, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-20-00003-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

On January 2, 2020, pro se Plaintiff filed the complaint (Doc. 1) and an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2.) On January 6, 2020, the Court granted 

the application and screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Doc. 6.) 

The Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to plead facts establishing that the Court had 

subject-matter jurisdiction and failed to plead facts establishing the conduct that gave rise 

to a cause of action—that is, what happened and when. (Doc. 6 at 3.)

The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend and ordered that the first amended 

complaint (“FAC”) must (1) “adhere to all portions of Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules of 

Civil Procedure (“LRCiv”)” (2) “satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” (3) “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,” (4)

set forth all pleading requirements “in separate and discrete numbered paragraphs,” in 

which each allegation is “simple, concise, and direct.” (Doc. 6 at 3-4.)

Case 2:20-cv-00003-DWL Document 9 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 2
- 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

The Court warned Plaintiff that if the FAC failed to comply with the Court’s 

instructions explained in the 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” and 

cautioned Plaintiff that because the Court had given specific guidance regarding the 

deficiencies in the complaint and the requirements for fixing those deficiencies, “the 

Court is not inclined to grant Plaintiff leave to file another amended complaint if the 

[FAC] is found to be deficient.” (Doc. 6 at 4.) The Court directed Plaintiff to become 

familiar with the local and federal rules and reminded Plaintiff “that the Federal Court 

Self-Service Clinic provides free civil legal help to self-represented litigants.” Id.

On January 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed the FAC. (Doc. 7.) The FAC again does not

cite any federal law or otherwise allege facts that would establish that the Court has 

subject-matter jurisdiction. Nor does it allege when the alleged conduct occurred. Nor 

does it set forth its allegations “in separate and discrete numbered paragraphs” or 

otherwise follow the Court’s instructions regarding following the federal and local rules.

The Court will therefore dismiss this action without leave to amend for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction, for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), 

and under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with the Court’s order and with federal and 

local rules.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the FAC (Doc. 7) is dismissed without leave to amend. 

The Clerk of Court shall terminate the action.

Dated this 20th day of February, 2020.

Case 2:20-cv-00003-DWL Document 9 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 2