Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01936/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01936-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Cox
Plaintiff
Robyn Varcoe
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

Gary Cox, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Robyn Varcoe, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-1936-PHX-JAT

ORDER

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

the Court orders service of an in forma pauperis complaint, the Court may screen the

complaint. Specifically:

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. 

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

Here, the complaint is inadequate for two primary reasons. First, the complaint names

Case 2:12-cv-01936-JAT Document 7 Filed 09/26/12 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 -

Robyn Varcoe, an attorney with the Varcoe Law Firm, PLLC, as the defendant. The sole

allegation of jurisdiction is 42 U.S.C. § 1983. There is nothing in the complaint that

suggests that Ms. Varcoe is a state actor. Therefore, on the face of the complaint, Plaintiff

fails to state a claim under § 1983. 

Second, it appears from the complaint that Ms. Varcoe is representing Plaintiff in a

state court criminal matter. Plaintiff’s prayer for relief is, “Therefore, Plaintiff want[s] the

court to removal the Defendant off the case as his attorney.” Doc. 1 at 6. This Court cannot

intervene in a state court proceeding and determine counsel for a criminal defendant. See

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53–54 (1971). Therefore, in addition to Plaintiff failing to

state a claim under § 1983, this Court is without the authority to grant Plaintiff the relief he

requests.

In certain circumstances, the Court should grant leave to amend. Bonanno v. Thomas,

309 F.2d 320, 322 (9th Cir. 1962). However, in this case, the Court finds Plaintiff is unable

to cure either defect by the allegation of additional facts. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot.

DATED this 26th day of September, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-01936-JAT Document 7 Filed 09/26/12 Page 2 of 2