Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00961/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00961-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
4909 Beverly LLC
Defendant
Brittian Willie Young
Plaintiff

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WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Brittian Willie Young, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

4909 Beverly LLC, 

Defendant.

No. CV-16-00961-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

At issue is pro se Plaintiff Brittian Willie Young’s Motion for Leave to File 

Amended Complaint; Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or 

Costs; Waiver of Service; Memorandum of Law; Declaration of Brittian Willie Young in 

Support Thereof (Doc. 5, Mot.). 

Plaintiff’s Motion asks the Court for leave to file an Amended Complaint (Mot. at 

3), but the Court previously issued an Order granting Plaintiff leave to file an Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 4), and thus Plaintiff already has permission to do so. Plaintiff’s Motion 

at issue includes allegations that could be characterized as an Amended Complaint. (See 

Mot. at 3–5, 11–16.) Upon review of Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court finds Plaintiff has 

failed to cure the defects in the Complaint. Plaintiff again fails to allege a clear statement 

of the grounds for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, as required by Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 8(a). In its previous Order, the Court stated: 

Unlike state courts, federal courts only have jurisdiction over a 

limited number of cases, and those cases typically involve either a 

controversy between citizens of different states (“diversity jurisdiction”) or 

Case 2:16-cv-00961-JJT Document 6 Filed 06/07/16 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 

a question of federal law (“federal question jurisdiction”). See 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331, 1332. The United States Supreme Court has stated that a federal 

court must not disregard or evade the limits on its subject matter 

jurisdiction. Owen Equip. & Erections Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 

(1978). Thus, a federal court is obligated to inquire into its subject matter 

jurisdiction in each case and to dismiss a case when subject matter 

jurisdiction is lacking. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 

(9th Cir. 2004); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides that a complaint must 

include “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s 

jurisdiction” and “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” In other words, to proceed in federal court, a 

plaintiff must allege enough in the complaint for the court to conclude it 

has subject matter jurisdiction. See Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. 

Miller, 5 Fed. Practice & Procedure § 1206 (3d ed. 2014). The complaint 

must also contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim 

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 

(Doc. 4 at 2.) 

 Plaintiff provides an Arizona Post Office Box address as his address (Doc. 5 at 10) 

and states Defendant is an Arizona Limited Liability Company (Doc. 5 at 12). Therefore, 

it does not appear this Court has diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiff has not alleged 

that his claim involves a controversy between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332. While Plaintiff cites various constitutional amendments, none provide a short and 

plain statement of a claim that would give this Court federal question jurisdiction. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff has failed to provide a clear basis for this Court’s diversity or 

federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff’s allegations in the present 

Motion can be characterized as an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has not cured the 

defective Complaint. The Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to file an Amended 

Complaint, but any Amended Complaint must meet the requirements of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. 

Case 2:16-cv-00961-JJT Document 6 Filed 06/07/16 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 

With regard to Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without 

Prepaying Fees or Costs, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficient means to pay the Court’s 

fees in this case. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff Brittian Willie Young’s 

Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay the Court’s fees within 30 

days of entry of this Order in order to proceed in this case. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not pay the Court’s fees within 

30 days of entry of this Order, the Clerk shall dismiss this action without further Order of 

this Court. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint that 

complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days from the date of 

this Order. If no Amended Complaint is timely filed, the Clerk shall dismiss this action 

without further Order of the Court. 

Dated this 6th day of June, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-00961-JJT Document 6 Filed 06/07/16 Page 3 of 3