Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08069/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08069-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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

Thomas J. McCoy , 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Ass’n et.

al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-8069-PCT-GMS

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint and Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis (Docs. 5, 6). The Court grants the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

and again dismisses the Amended Complaint. It will give Plaintiff one more chance to

amend his complaint to state a claim. 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. 5), alleges that this Court has

diversity jurisdiction over his claims because “The Defend (sic) in this case is Federal Home

Loan Mortgage Ass’n.” and it is based in Fairfax County Virginia, and Plaintiff is seeking

more than $75,000 in damages.” 

Nevertheless, there are several problems with this argument. An Amended Complaint

supersedes all previous complaints. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) As a

result, as a matter of law, allegations that existed in the previous complaint that have not been

realleged in the amended complaint, are no longer of any force in the lawsuit. “All causes

Case 3:11-cv-08069-GMS Document 7 Filed 06/24/11 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 -

of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are

waived.” Id. Citing London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981).

Therefore, each of the Defendants and claims from previous complaints that a Plaintiff

wishes to reallege in his amended complaint, must be repeated in the amended complaint.

They cannot be incorporated by reference. See LRCiv. 15.1. Plaintiff does not appear to

have followed this rule. It appears that he believes that the allegations of his original

complaint remain in force, but they do not. 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) authorized Plaintiff to amend his complaint,

which he did. His amended complaint now governs this action. 

 To the extent the FAC alleges, as it does, that the Defendant Federal Home Loan

Mortgage Ass’n is domiciled in Virginia and his claims exceed $75,000, the complaint

adequately pleads the existence of diversity jurisdiction against the FHLMA. (Absent from

the FAC is any allegation that the Plaintiff is an Arizona resident. Nevertheless, because

Court’s read pro se complaints liberally, the Court is willing to assume for present purposes

that Plaintiff intends to plead that he is an Arizona resident.) Diversity jurisdiction, however,

is destroyed to the extent that Plaintiff also intends to name Arizona residents as Defendants

to his claims. While his original complaint asserts claims against other Arizona residents.

His FAC does not. Therefore, the Court is willing to assume that Plaintiff has adequately

pleaded the existence of diversity jurisdiction against the only Defendant mentioned in the

FAC. 

Nevertheless, to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain more than “labels and conclusions”

or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action[;]” it must contain factual

allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff

pleads factual content that allows 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) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The FAC does nothing to identify or state

Case 3:11-cv-08069-GMS Document 7 Filed 06/24/11 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 -

Plaintiff’s claims against the FHLMA. A preliminary review of the FAC demonstrates that

Plaintiff’s sparse allegations are insufficient to put the Defendant on notice of the nature of

the Plaintiff’s claims against it. See Jackson v. Nelson, 405 F.2d 872, 873 (9th Cir. 1968)

(affirming dismissal where the complaint did not specify which defendants took which

actions); Allied Steel & Tractor Prods., Inc. v. First Nat’l Bank of N.Y., 54 F.R.D. 256, 260

(N.D. Ohio 1971) (discussing that even under “liberalized pleading requirements[,]” “merely

identifying a party as a defendant without alleging more” violates Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8). Plaintiff’s FAC mentions a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but such

claims can only be brought against persons who are acting under the color of state law, and

in a state capacity, and who are alleged to have deprived the Plaintiff of his federal rights.

It is not clear to this court how the FHLMA could be acting under the authority of state law,

and how it deprived Defendant of his federally-protected rights. Plaintiff’s assertions about

his title history indicating that the land originally came from a federal patent, do nothing in

and of themselves to establish a § 1983 claim.. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s FAC is dismissed.

Should Plaintiff choose to file a second amended complaint, Plaintiff must identify specific

legal claims against the Defendant or Defendants, further specify which Defendants are liable

for which claims and must include factual detail supporting each assertion. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma

pauperis (Doc. 6).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 5)

with leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by July 25, 2011.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects not to file a Second Amended

Complaint by July 25, 2011, the Clerk of the Court is directed to dismiss this action without

further Order of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects to file a Second Amended

Complaint, the Complaint may not be served until and unless the Court screens the Second

Amended Complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

DATED this 24th day of June, 2011.

Case 3:11-cv-08069-GMS Document 7 Filed 06/24/11 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 -

Case 3:11-cv-08069-GMS Document 7 Filed 06/24/11 Page 4 of 4