Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08087/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08087-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ernest Bishop
Plaintiff
Bridget Wicks
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WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ernest Bishop,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bridget Wicks, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-16-08087-PCT-JJT

ORDER 

At issue is pro se Plaintiff Ernest Bishop’s Application to Proceed in District 

Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). Having determined that Plaintiff is 

unable to pay the Court’s fees, the Court grants the Application. However, as set forth 

below, upon screening Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1, Compl.) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2), the Court has found that Plaintiff has not satisfied the pleading requirements 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court therefore dismisses the Complaint with 

permission to file an Amended Complaint by June 29, 2016. 

I. LEGAL STANDARDS 

A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

For cases in which a party is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis—that is, the 

party lacks the means to pay court fees—Congress provided 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 

Case 3:16-cv-08087-JJT Document 14 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis

proceedings. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). “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. at 1127. 

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Pleading in Federal Court 

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 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)). 

II. ANALYSIS 

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendant Bridget Wicks, a Nurse Practitioner at 

the Guidance Center in Flagstaff, Arizona, conducted an HIV test of Plaintiff despite his 

explicit statement that he did not want to be tested. (Compl. at 2–4.) He alleges that 

Ms. Wicks violated his civil rights in so doing. (Compl. at 3–4.) Applying a benefit-ofCase 3:16-cv-08087-JJT Document 14 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

any-doubt standard to this claim, the Court assumes that Plaintiff attempts to bring a claim 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides for a private right of action against a state actor for 

a constitutional violation. 

 To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must first allege state action. Determining 

whether an entity is subject to suit under § 1983 is the “same question posed in cases 

arising under the Fourteenth Amendment: is the alleged infringement of federal rights 

fairly attributable to the [government]?” Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 

F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838 (1982)). 

For a court to answer this question in the affirmative, a plaintiff must show that two 

requirements are met: (1) the deprivation to the plaintiff by the entity “must result from a 

governmental policy,” and (2) “the party charged with the deprivation must be a person 

who may fairly be said to be a [governmental] actor.” Id. 

 Here, the allegations in the Complaint do not meet either requirement. The 

Complaint contains no allegations that the procedures used by Ms. Wicks are part of a 

governmental policy. Moreover, Ms. Wicks, is, based on the information available to the 

Court, not a governmental actor. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to allege a state action 

sufficient to raise a § 1983 claim. See id. at 836-43. 

 The Court cannot discern any other federal claim based on Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

The Court also does not find that the Complaint alleges any state law claim relying on 

diversity jurisdiction, but the Court notes that such a claim would fail because Plaintiff 

has not alleged that his claim involves a controversy between citizens of different states. 

Rather, he only alleges that he lives in Arizona and that the incident and Defendant’s 

actions took place in Arizona. 

 In sum, Plaintiff’s claims fail because he does not allege facts sufficient for the 

Court to find it has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. Plaintiff may amend his 

Complaint to the extent he can allege subject matter jurisdiction by either showing his 

claims involve a controversy between citizens of different states, and the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000, or a question of federal law, identifying the specific claim 

Case 3:16-cv-08087-JJT Document 14 Filed 06/13/16 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

and what statute applies, if any. Plaintiff may only amend his Complaint to allege a 

§ 1983 claim if he can allege facts showing state action. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in 

District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed with 

permission to file an Amended Complaint by June 29, 2016. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not file an Amended Complaint 

by June 29, 2016, the Clerk shall dismiss this action without further Order of this Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects to file an Amended Complaint, 

he may not serve it on Defendant until and unless the Court screens the Amended 

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If and when the Court gives Plaintiff leave 

to serve an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff shall be responsible for service and may do so by 

request for waiver under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. 

 Dated this 10th day of June, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-08087-JJT Document 14 Filed 06/13/16 Page 4 of 4