Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00862/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00862-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Airlines
Defendant
Michael Randy Warzenski
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WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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 

Michael Randy Warzenski, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

American Airlines, 

Defendant.

No. CV-16-00862-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

At issue is pro se Plaintiff Michael Randy Warzenski’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 April 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 

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

Case 2:16-cv-00862-JJT Document 5 Filed 04/07/16 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 

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 

A. Pleading Requirements 

Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks any statement of the grounds for this Court’s subject 

matter jurisdiction, as required by Rule 8(a). This defect alone is cause for the Court to 

dismiss the Complaint. See Watson v. Chessman, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1194 (S.D. Cal. 

2005). 

Case 2:16-cv-00862-JJT Document 5 Filed 04/07/16 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 

Plaintiff also fails to meet the Rule 8 requirements with regard to stating a claim. 

While Plaintiff alleges that he “was wrongfully terminated” from his employment with 

Defendant, he does not allege any basis for a legal claim against Defendant, whether that 

may be breach of an employment contract, violation of a federal statute or constitutional 

right, or something else. 

B. Leave to Amend 

If a defective complaint can be cured, the plaintiff is entitled to amend the complaint 

before the action is dismissed. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127–30. Here, the Court will give 

Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his Complaint, but any Amended Complaint must meet 

the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

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 April 29, 2016. 

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

by April 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, 

it may not be served 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 7th day of April, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-00862-JJT Document 5 Filed 04/07/16 Page 3 of 3