Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02091/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02091-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

Wanda E. Van Scyoc, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

John E. Potter, Postmaster General, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2091-PHX-LOA

ORDER

 This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default, docket # 13,

Motion for Default Judgment, docket # 14, and the Court’s review of the record in this

matter. 

 On November 10, 2008, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint. (docket # 1) 

Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and submitted the

affidavit required by § 1915(a), showing that she is unable to prepay fees and costs or give

security therefor. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.

(docket # 5) Thereafter, Plaintiff consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction in accordance

with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (docket # 6) 

Although the Court has determined that Plaintiff may proceed in forma

pauperis, that does not end the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the

district court must dismiss the case “at any time” if it determines the allegation of poverty is

untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

Case 2:08-cv-02091-LOA Document 15 Filed 08/26/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

(emphasis added). “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. Muhammad v. NBC, 2008 WL 1776498, * 1 (D.Ariz. 2008) (citing

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma

pauperis complaints”). Thus, screening is required even if plaintiff, who filed an IFP action,

is not a prisoner. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226-1227 (9th Cir. 1984).

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404

U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), a pro se plaintiff must still satisfy the pleading requirements of

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to include “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. While

Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned,

the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct.

1937, 1949 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. In other words, “a plaintiff's obligation to

provide the ‘grounds’ of [her] ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual

allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the

assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007) (citations and emphasis omitted). 

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 125 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 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 1950. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual

allegations may be consistent with a employment discrimination or other type of claim, a

district court must assess whether there are other “more likely explanations” for a

Case 2:08-cv-02091-LOA Document 15 Filed 08/26/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

defendant’s conduct. Id. at 1951. In addition to satisfying the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2),

a complaint must include the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction rests and a demand

for relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). 

If a district court determines that a pleading may be cured by the allegation

of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before

dismissal of the action. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127-29 (en banc). The Court should not,

however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type of advice “would undermine

[trial] judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004);

203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to decide whether the court was required to inform a

litigant of deficiencies). 

As discussed below, the Complaint fails to comply Rule 8 and fails to state

a claim. Plaintiff’s Complaint consists entirely of conclusory allegations. Plaintiff appears

to assert several claims of employment discrimination, and her Complaint alleges:

discrimination based on Race (African American), Color (Black),

Retaliation (Prior EEO Activity), Physical Disability (Herniated Disc, 

Lumbar Spine, when: Via letter dated January 14, 2008, the District 

Reasonable Accommodation Committee (DRAC) informed complainant 

was not considered a disabled person under the law, thus they are unable to

continue considering Complainant for reasonable accommodation.

(docket # 1 at 1-2) These vague, conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim for

relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-556. Plaintiff also alleges a claim of retaliation. In order

to state a claim of retaliation, a plaintiff must allege that (1) she was engaged in protected

activity, (2) she suffered an adverse employment decision, and (3) there is a causal link

between the activity and the employment action. Folkerson v. Circus Circus Enters., 107

F.3d 754, 755 (9th Cir.1997). Plaintiff provides no factual allegations that correspond with

these elements. Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1228 (stating that “a court may dismiss as frivolous

complaints reciting bare legal conclusions with no suggestion of supporting facts. . . . ”)

(citation omitted). Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to state a claim for

employment discrimination based on race or disability, she fails to identify the authority -

statutory or otherwise - upon which her claims are based. Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network,

Case 2:08-cv-02091-LOA Document 15 Filed 08/26/09 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir.1994) (the court is not required to accept or infer legal

conclusions if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged).

The Complaint also fails to provide a jurisdictional basis for this action. A

federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only those cases

authorized by the Constitution and by statute. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.

375, 377 (1994). The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, confer

“federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction

requires that the complaint (1) arise under a federal law or the U.S. Constitution, (2) allege a

“case or controversy” within the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution, or (3)

be authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers

federal jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity

jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that

the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American

World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir.1987). A case presumably lies outside the

jurisdiction of the federal courts unless demonstrated otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at

376-78. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by

the court. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th

Cir.1996).

The Complaint also does not identify a federal statute conferring federal

question jurisdiction. Because Plaintiff fails to allege a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction and

fails to articulate a cognizable claim for relief, the Court must dismiss the complaint.

However, Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and corrects the deficiencies identified in this Order. In view of

the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, her pending motions for default and default judgment

are moot and will be denied as such. 

If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, she is advised that an

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th

Cir.1967). Accordingly, once Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer

Case 2:08-cv-02091-LOA Document 15 Filed 08/26/09 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

serves any function in the case. Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in

the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint,” London v. Coopers

& Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir.1981), and defendants not named in an amended

complaint are no longer defendants. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992).

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, docket # 1, is hereby 

DISMISSED with leave to amend.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted thirty days (30)

from the date of service of this order to file an Amended Complaint. Failure to timely file an

amended complaint in accordance with this Order will result in dismissal of this matter

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Entry of

Default, docket # 13, and for Default Judgment, docket # 14, are DENIED as moot. 

Dated this 25th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02091-LOA Document 15 Filed 08/26/09 Page 5 of 5