Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03255/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03255-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ovard Aloise Ambroise
Plaintiff
Judith Ann Martin
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ovard Aloise Ambroise,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Judith Ann Martin,

Defendant.

No. CV 23-01121 PHX CDB

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. McNAMEE:

Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, has consented to the exercise of magistrate judge 

jurisdiction over this matter. However, Defendant has not been served nor appeared.

Plaintiff has filed an application seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 

No. 2). Because granting the motion would require the Complaint to be screened, and 

because upon screening it appears the Court is without jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s 

claim for relief, a decision on the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is dispositive. 

Accordingly, the undersigned makes the following proposed findings of fact, report, and 

recommendation pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 72(b), 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and Rule 72.2(a)(2) of the Local 

Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 

and General Order 21-25.

Generally, parties who file an action in a federal district court must pay a filing 

fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 permits indigent plaintiffs to 

Case 2:24-cv-03255-SMM-CDB Document 7 Filed 12/05/24 Page 1 of 5
- 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

apply for a fee waiver. Proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil case “is a privilege, not a 

right—fundamental or otherwise.” White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 

1998). Granting or denying this privilege is a matter within the Court’s discretion. See, 

e.g., Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 

1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998). Such a motion may be granted when the plaintiff has 

established their indigency1and docketed a complaint which presents at least one 

nonfrivolous claim. See, e.g., Smith-Bey v. Hospital Adm’r, 841 F.2d 751, 756-57 (7th 

Cir. 1988). In civil actions leave to proceed in forma pauperis “should be allowed only in 

exceptional circumstances.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1963) 

(internal quotations omitted). 

The Court must dismiss a complaint filed in tandem with a petition to proceed in 

forma pauperis if it is satisfied that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may 

be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).2 Even pro se pleadings must contain a 

minimum level of factual support and a plaintiff should not be allowed to proceed in 

forma pauperis if the Court must invent scenarios not evident from the face of the 

complaint. See Richmond v. Cagle, 920 F. Supp. 955, 957 (E.D. Wis. 1996), cited in 

Staples v. Arizona Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 2007 WL 864742, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 20, 2007). 

To survive screening, “[t]he plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of 

particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.” 

1 Before granting a plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must decide 

whether the litigant is truly unable to pay filing fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff has establishing indigency. Plaintiff asserts she has 

earned income of $1400 per month, and that she owns a vehicle. (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff avers her 

rent or mortgage is $1300 per month, utilities are $120 per month, and she spends $150 per 

month on food. (Id.). Plaintiff pays $200 per month for her car payment. (Id.). 

2

“While much of § 1915 outlines how prisoners can file proceedings in forma pauperis, 

§ 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners.” Long v. 

Maricopa Cmty. College Dist., 2012 WL 588965, at *1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 22, 2012), citing Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma 

pauperis complaints[.]”). See also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001). Therefore, 

§ 1915 applies to this non-prisoner action.

Case 2:24-cv-03255-SMM-CDB Document 7 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 5
- 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

Jones v. Community Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal 

quotations omitted). ). 

Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h), the Court must 

dismiss an action “[w]henever it appears ... that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject 

matter ....” In order for a claim to be heard in federal court, the Court must have either 

federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1332.3“A [district] court has an obligation to inquire sua sponte into its 

subject matter jurisdiction, and to proceed no further if such jurisdiction is wanting.” 

Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 660, 665 (9th Cir. 2003).

The Complaint asserts a cause of action for breach of contract, and Plaintiff

alleges jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (ECF No. 1 at 1). Plaintiff states she is a 

resident of Arizona and alleges Defendant is also a resident of Arizona. Plaintiff does not 

state the amount of damages she seeks, and the statement of her claim is, in its entirety, as 

follows: “The plaintiff, Ovard Moise Ambroise, and the defendant, Judith Ann Martin, 

made an agreement or contract on July 2014. The agreement or contract was both written 

and oral. Under that agreement or contract, the parties were required to provide housing, 

education and health care.” (ECF No. 1 at 4). Plaintiff alleges “She witheld [sic] financial 

support,” and with regard to the relief sought Plaintiff states: “Debt Bondage.” (Id.). 

For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, the parties must be residents 

of different states and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a). The diversity statute is strictly construed, and any doubts are resolved against 

finding jurisdiction. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir.

1983). Because the citizenship of the parties is a jurisdictional fact in § 1332 actions, the 

burden is on the plaintiff—the party invoking federal jurisdiction—to plead and prove 

facts establishing diversity. See, e.g., Bautista v. Pan Am. World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 

3 The Complaint does not state a basis for federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s 

claim is for breach of contract, a state-law cause of action. 

Case 2:24-cv-03255-SMM-CDB Document 7 Filed 12/05/24 Page 3 of 5
- 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

546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). The amount in controversy is generally determined from the 

face of the pleadings. See Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 

1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2010); Crum v. Circus Circus Enter., 231 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 

2000).

Plaintiff fails to state a claim over which the Court has jurisdiction. Plaintiff 

alleges she and the Defendant are both residents of Arizona, and there is no diversity of 

the parties when both the plaintiff and the defendant are residents of the same state. See 

Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). Therefore the Court does not 

have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim based on diversity of the parties. Additionally, 

diversity jurisdiction is predicated on a colorable claim that at least $75,000 in damages 

is in dispute, and Plaintiff does not provide any allegation as to the amount of damages 

she seeks. Because the Complaint does not provide a basis for the exercise of federal 

court jurisdiction, it must be dismissed. 

“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is 

absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” 

Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). Under the circumstances, i.e., because there is no diversity of the 

parties and accordingly no basis for jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim for relief, it is clear 

that Plaintiff cannot cure the deficiencies of the Complaint by amendment. 

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint at ECF No. 1 be dismissed 

without leave to amend.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion at ECF No. 2 be 

denied as moot.

This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. 

Plaintiff has fourteen days from the date of service of this Report and Recommendation 

Case 2:24-cv-03255-SMM-CDB Document 7 Filed 12/05/24 Page 4 of 5
- 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

to file specific, written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Failure to timely object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation may result in the District Court’s acceptance of the Report and 

Recommendation without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely object to any factual determinations of the 

Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the 

findings of fact in an order of judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

Dated this 4th day of December, 2024.

Case 2:24-cv-03255-SMM-CDB Document 7 Filed 12/05/24 Page 5 of 5