Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00258/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00258-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Penelope A. Riley, 

Plaintiff,

v.

University of Arizona, Pima Community

College, Arizona Department of Economic

Security- Vocational Rehabilitation Services, et.

al,

Defendants. _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV 07-258 TUC DCB

ORDER

On June 1, 2007, the Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a Complaint. Plaintiff also sought

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court granted her in forma pauperis status, which

means that the United States Marshall shall serve the Complaint upon Defendants at no cost

to the Plaintiff. She also incurs no filing fees. 

Title 28 of the United States Code, section 1915 provides for this Court to screen the

Complaint before it orders it served on the Defendants to ensure that Plaintiff’s claims are

neither legally nor factually frivolous. On July 30, 2007, this Court issued an Order

explaining certain deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Complaint and gave her leave to file an

Amended Complaint to cure them. 

On August 20, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. It is clear that she

did not understand the Court’s directives regarding the deficiencies in her original

Complaint. Because she is pro se this Court will give her one more opportunity to file an

Amended Complaint that states a claim. Plaintiff is referred to the explanations contained

Case 4:07-cv-00258-DCB Document 14 Filed 10/18/07 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

in the Order issued by this Court on July 30, 2007. Additionally, the Court provides the

following clarification.

First, Plaintiff does not need to serve a copy of the Amended Complaint on the

Defendants. Because she proceeds in forma pauperis service of the Amended Complaint will

be performed by the United States Marshal. Upon the filing of an Amended Complaint that

cures the deficiencies identified by the Court in the July 30, 2007, Order, the Court will order

the United States Marshal to serve the Complaint, and the Clerk’s Office will send the

Plaintiff service packets for her to complete and forward to the Marshals, which they will use

to serve the Amended Complaint. The instructions in the July 30, 2007, Order that the

Plaintiff must comply with the rules of service, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4-6, pertain to her obligation

to serve a copy of every document, except the Amended Complaint, on the Defendants. The

requirement that she needs to certify that she has served a document on a Defendant or

Defendant’s counsel may be a simple signed statement at the end of the document, which

attests as follows: “I Penelope Riley certify that on this _____ date I served Defendant

________ with a copy of this document.”

Second, the Amended Complaint filed by the Plaintiff on August 20, 2007, did not

cure any of the deficiencies described by the Court. Instead, it was a presentation of

evidence supporting her claims. This is not required to state a claim. Plaintiff’s original

Complaint was in large part adequate, except that she failed to identify which Defendant,

Pima Community College, University of Arizona, or the Vocational Rehabilitation Services,

or some other unnamed individual like a teacher or counselor, committed the various acts she

alleged violated her rights. Plaintiff must add the names of the Defendants to the allegations

contained in paragraph 3 of her original Complaint to identify which Defendant committed

each act alleged in it. Plaintiff may name individual employees, but must identify the

employer of a named individual unless the individual acted independent of his or her

employment. The problem with the Plaintiffs original Complaint was that it was impossible

Case 4:07-cv-00258-DCB Document 14 Filed 10/18/07 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

to determine which of the three Defendants did which of the things she alleged violated her

rights. Because Plaintiff is filing an Amended Complaint she may add allegations and

defendants that she did not include in paragraph 3, or she may restate paragraph 3 amended

to link a specific named Defendant to a specific allegation. Any Defendant not linked to

some specific alleged violation must be dismissed from the action. 

Third, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, which means she wants money damages.

As explained in this Court’s July 30, 2007 Order, money damages are limited in this case

because the Defendants are all state actors. Plaintiff should consider whether she wishes to

seek any prospective injunctive relief, such as an injunction against any future failure to

accommodate her disability and an order directing Defendants to enroll her in another course

of study or allow her to retake certain classes. Plaintiff is free to add such a claim for

injunctive relief in an Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s amended Complaint must cure the deficiencies described in this Court’s

July 30, 2007 Order and clarified here or this case will be dismissed. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants motions to dismiss (documents 10 and 13) are

GRANTED. The Amended Complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has leave to file a Second Amended

Complaint by November 1, 2007, to state her claims to cure the deficiencies identified in this

Order and in the screening Order filed on July 30, 2007. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

MUST BE CLEARLY DESIGNATED AS "SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT" ON

THE FACE OF THE DOCUMENT. The Amended Complaint must state specific allegations

against proper Defendant(s), named as Defendant(s); and identify who participated in which

activities alleged in the Complaint; and state what injury, if any, Plaintiff suffered as a result

of the activities of each Defendant. THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT MUST BE

Case 4:07-cv-00258-DCB Document 14 Filed 10/18/07 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

RETYPED OR REWRITTEN IN ITS ENTIRETY AND MAY NOT INCORPORATE ANY

PART OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT BY REFERENCE. Local Rule 7.1(d)).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to DISMISS

all claims and to close this case, without further notice to Plaintiff, if Plaintiff fails to file the

Second Amended Complaint by November 1, 2007.

DATED this 11th day of October, 2007.

Case 4:07-cv-00258-DCB Document 14 Filed 10/18/07 Page 4 of 4