Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08027/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08027-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Stanley R. Waff, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Navajo County, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-8027-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Stanley R. Waff’s Amended Complaint. On

February 24, 2010, this Court issued an Order that denied denying as moot Plaintiff’s Motion

to Grant to Present Evidence, denied as moot Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis, dismissed Plaintiff'’s complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a), and Ordered that Plaintiff could file an Amended Complaint in compliance

with Rule 8(a) within 30 days. (See Dkt.#11). In the same Order, the Court noted that if an

Amended Complaint was not filed, the case would be dismissed without further notice to Mr.

Waff.

On March 24, 2010, Plaintiff Waff filed an Amended Complaint. Unfortunately,

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint suffers from the same flaws that rendered his initial

Complaint non-actionable. Like his initial Complaint, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is both

factually and legally incomprehensible. After carefully evaluating Plaintiff’s pro se filing,

Case 3:10-cv-08027-MHM Document 17 Filed 03/30/10 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 -

the Court still cannot determine the nature of the lawsuit .The Court will therefore dismiss

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and this action. Leave to amend need not be given if a

complaint as amended is subject to dismissal. Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885

F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court’s discretion to deny or grant leave to amend is

particularly broad where Plaintiff has previously been permitted to amend his complaint. See

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996). Failure

to cure deficiencies by previous amendments is one of the factors to be considered in

deciding whether justice requires granting leave to amend. Moore, 885 F.2d at 538. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for failure to comply

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). (Doc. #16).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 29th day of March, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08027-MHM Document 17 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 2