Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00961/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00961-0/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WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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 Application to Proceed in 

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

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

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. 

Case 2:16-cv-00961-JJT Document 4 Filed 04/13/16 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 

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 

 With regard to the Complaint (Doc. 1, Compl.), the Court finds it lacks a clear 

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

8(a). It appears that Plaintiff may be asserting federal question jurisdiction by stating 

“constitutional provisions have been violated.” (Compl. at 1.) However, Plaintiff also 

notes Plaintiff and Defendant’s respective residencies and “negligence, and duty of care,” 

suggesting he may be asserting diversity jurisdiction over a state law cause of action. 

(Compl. at 1.) Plaintiff must provide a clear basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. This defect 

Case 2:16-cv-00961-JJT Document 4 Filed 04/13/16 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 

alone is cause for the Court to dismiss the Complaint. See Watson v. Chessman, 362 F. 

Supp. 2d 1190, 1194 (S.D. Cal. 2005). 

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

Plaintiff alleges “Defendant failed and violated conditions of personal verbal agreements 

and written agreements which lead to the destruction of a sacrament and place of 

conception.” (Compl. at 2.) He also alleges “Defendant’s actions lead to the violation of 

civil rights and due process in the fact that evidence was removed and there was a breach 

of contract . . . .” (Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff’s allegations are general, conclusory, and devoid 

of any facts showing, for example, what Defendant did, said, did not do, or did not say, and 

why any action or inaction violates any law or the Constitution. It is impossible from the 

pleadings for this Court or for Defendant to have notice of any specific or general acts 

taken by Defendant that Plaintiff claims to be contrary to law. The Court concludes 

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and it will 

dismiss the action without prejudice. 

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. 

With regard to the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying 

Fees or Costs (Doc. 2), the Court finds that the Application is not clear enough for the 

Court to meaningfully evaluate Plaintiff’s ability to pay the costs of these proceedings. 

Specifically, the basis for the change in Plaintiff’s monthly income from $8,700 to $700 

and his $580 “other” monthly expenses is unclear. 

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

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. 

Case 2:16-cv-00961-JJT Document 4 Filed 04/13/16 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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District 

Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) because Plaintiff provided insufficient 

detail. If Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff may either file an Amended 

Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs containing the 

required information, or pay the Court’s filing fee. 

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 13th day of April, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-00961-JJT Document 4 Filed 04/13/16 Page 4 of 4