Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00248/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00248-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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 KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Frank Pauline, Jr.

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Chris Loos, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-248-PHX-GMS (MHB)

ORDER

On February 2, 2010, Plaintiff Frank Pauline, Jr., who is confined in the Corrections

Corporation of America-Saguaro Correctional Center in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se

Complaint (Doc. #1). In a March 4, 2010 Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to pay the

$350.00 filing fee or file an Application to Proceed to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff

filed a deficient Application to Proceed on March 15, 2010, which the Court denied with

leave to re-file. On April 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis and certified account statement. On May 4, 2010, the Court granted the second

Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend.

On May 14, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Clarification” in which he asks that the Court

review Plaintiff’s Complaint as originally filed. The Court will treat the “Clarification” as

a motion for reconsideration of the screening Order and will deny it. 

First, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed for failure to allege a

jurisdictional basis. Accordingly, the Court cannot accept Plaintiff’s Complaint in its

original form. See Watson v. Chessman, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1194 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (“The

Case 2:10-cv-00248-GMS--MHB Document 11 Filed 05/24/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

court will not . . . infer allegations supporting federal jurisdiction; federal subject matter

[jurisdiction] must always be affirmatively alleged.”). 

Further, to the extent that Plaintiff asserts he is filing a copyright complaint and not

a civil rights complaint, and should therefore be allowed to proceed without use of the form,

Plaintiff is mistaken. Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4(a) requires that “all complaints

. . . by incarcerated persons shall be signed and legibly written or typewritten on forms

approved by the Court.” This rule applies to all incarcerated person regardless of the nature

of their claims. Plaintiff should use the form provided to him to file an amended complaint

and may modify the form as necessary to reflect that he is not raising a civil rights complaint.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Clarification” (Doc. # 10), which

the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration of the screening Order, is denied.

DATED this 24th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00248-GMS--MHB Document 11 Filed 05/24/10 Page 2 of 2