Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03134/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03134-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Greene
Defendant
Charles H Landwer
Plaintiff
Royal Neighbors of America
Defendant
US Funeral Expenses
Defendant
Unknown Party
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Charles H Landwer,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Royal Neighbors of America, US Funeral 

Expenses, and Unknown Party,

Defendants.

No. CV-24-03134-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 

2). 

Congress provided with respect to in forma pauperis cases that a 

district court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that 

the “allegation of poverty is untrue” or that the “action or appeal” is 

“frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 

granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 

such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 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. Lopez 

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

in forma pauperis complaints”). “It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only 

permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint 

that fails to state a claim.” Id. Therefore, this court must dismiss an in forma 

pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious. 

“[A] complaint, containing both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is 

frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Furthermore, "a finding of factual 

frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the 

irrational or wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially recognized 

facts available to contradict them." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 

(1992). “A case is malicious if it was filed with the intention or desire to 

harm another.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358205, *2-3 (D. Ariz. 2005).

Case 2:24-cv-03134-JAT Document 6 Filed 11/15/24 Page 1 of 3
- 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

Here, Plaintiff, pro se, filed a 30-page complaint alleging violations of the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). (Doc. 1 at 2). Plaintiff states that he is a 

resident of Illinois, and maintains his address in Illinois, but currently “resides” in 

Maricopa County, Arizona. (Doc. 1 at 3). Plaintiff claims that the two named Defendants 

principal places of business are in Illinois and Washington. (Id.). As for the Doe 

Defendant, Plaintiff alleges that his true name may be Thomas Greene and that he works 

for one of the other Defendants. Plaintiff does not allege a citizenship for Mr. Greene.

In screening a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), it is appropriate for this 

Court to also screen the complaint for personal jurisdiction and venue. Murray v. King 

Cnty. Ct., No. 3:23-CV-01899-AR, 2024 WL 169681, at *1 (D. Or. Jan. 16, 2024); 

Packwood v. County of Contra Costa, Case No. 3:22-cv-0219-ART-CLB, 2023 WL 

2349390, at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 2, 2023). For this Court to have venue over this case, and to 

potentially have personal jurisdiction over Defendants, the acts underlying this case must 

have occurred in Arizona. 

At the beginning of the complaint, Plaintiff makes several conclusory, boilerplate1

and unsupported statements about venue and personal jurisdiction, including an allegation 

that the acts, events or omissions giving rise to the complaint occurred in Arizona. (Doc. 

1 at 2, ¶ 3). However, Plaintiff’s non-boilerplate, specific allegations about this particular 

case are limited to paragraphs 75, 82, 84-93, and 105. These paragraphs detail Plaintiff 

receiving a call. However, these paragraphs never reference Arizona in any way. Further, 

the address Plaintiff uses on his complaint reflects that Plaintiff is receiving his mail in 

Illinois. The phone number at which Plaintiff claims to have received the call in this case 

has a Chicago, Illinois area code.

Further, although Plaintiff specifies that he received a call on November 9, 2024, he 

does not specify that he was in Arizona at the time of the call. And even if he was in 

Arizona, he does not allege that Defendants would have any reason to know that he was in 

1

 As an example of boilerplate language, Plaintiff refers to Defendants as “Defendant(s)” 

and uses the verb “is/are” to refer to the Defendants’ alleged presence in Arizona. (Doc. 1 

at 2). Plaintiff should know how many Defendants are present in his own case and must 

allege each Defendant’s contacts with Arizona individually.

Case 2:24-cv-03134-JAT Document 6 Filed 11/15/24 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

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

Arizona such that they availed themselves of this jurisdiction.2 For these reasons, the Court 

is doubtful that venue is appropriate in this district or that the Court has personal 

jurisdiction over Defendants.

Thus, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is 

granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 21 days of this Order, Plaintiff must file 

a supplement to the complaint (or an amended complaint) making specific, non-conclusory 

allegations that would support his conclusions that venue is present in this district and that 

this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this 

Order, this case will be dismissed, without prejudice.

Dated this 15th day of November, 2024.

2

 The Court notes that Plaintiff claims to have received the call on a cellular phone, which 

makes it at least possible that the phone and Plaintiff were in Arizona at the time of the 

call. However, as indicated above, Plaintiff does not allege that he was in Arizona. Nor 

does he allege how Defendants would know that by calling a Chicago number they were 

creating contacts with Arizona.

Case 2:24-cv-03134-JAT Document 6 Filed 11/15/24 Page 3 of 3