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 

Andre H. Ali, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Cash Time Title Loan Centers,

Defendant. 

No. CV-17-00546-TUC-BGM 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Andre Ali, filed a pro se Complaint (Doc. 1) and did not immediately pay 

the $350.00 civil action filing fee, but filed an Application to Proceed in District Court 

Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). 

 

I. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

 The Court may allow a plaintiff to proceed without prepayment of fees when it is 

shown by affidavit that he “is unable to pay such fees[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 

Plaintiff’s statement, made under penalty of perjury, establishes that Plaintiff receives 

disability benefits. The statement also indicates that Plaintiff’s sole asset is his vehicle 

and his expenses nearly equal his income. The Court finds Plaintiff is unable to pay the 

fees. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or 
- 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 

Costs (Doc. 2) will be granted. 

II. STATUTORY SCREENING OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

 This Court is required to dismiss a case if the Court determines that the allegation 

of poverty is untrue, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A), or if the Court determines that the action 

“(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or 

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. While Rule 8 does not demand 

detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. Where the pleader is pro 

se, however, the pleading should be liberally construed in the interests of justice. 

Johnson v. Reagan, 524 F.2d 1123, 1124 (9th Cir. 1975); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 

F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Nonetheless, a complaint must set forth a set of facts that 

serves to put defendants on notice as to the nature and basis of the claim(s). See Brazil v. 

U.S. Dept. of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995). 

A “complaint [filed by a pro se plaintiff] ‘must be held to less stringent standards 

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 342 (quoting Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard 
- 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 

applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 

U.S. 506, 513, 122 S.Ct. 992, 998, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). “Given the Federal Rules’ 

simplified standard for pleading, ‘[a] court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that 

no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the 

allegations.’” Id. at 514, 122 S.Ct. at 998 (quoting Hison v. King & Spaulding, 467 U.S. 

69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984)) (alterations in original); see also Johnson, 

et al. v. City of Shelby, Mississippi, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 346, 346 (2014) (“Federal 

pleading rules call for ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief,’ Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2); they do not countenance dismissal of a 

complaint for imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted”). 

 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 

facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 

of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 

Court should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type of 

advice “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. 

Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to 

decide whether the court was required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). 

III. COMPLAINT 

 Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to allege that Defendant attempted to illegally 

collect a debt, and refused to accept Plaintiff’s nationality. Compl. (Doc. 1) at 4, 7. 

Plaintiff seeks eight (8) million dollars as compensation for these alleged wrongs. Id. at 
- 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 

7. 

IV. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

 As an initial matter, this Court must consider whether it has jurisdiction to hear 

Mr. Ali’s claims. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. 

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 

L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). A district court has original jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This is 

known as federal question jurisdiction. District courts also have original jurisdiction “of 

all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, 

exclusive of interest and costs, and is between (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens 

of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; (3) citizens of different States and in 

which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state, 

defined in section 1603(a) of this title as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different 

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This is referred to as diversity jurisdiction. 

 Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) cannot support diversity jurisdiction as Plaintiff and 

Defendant are both citizens of Arizona. See Compl. (Doc. 1). Furthermore, Plaintiff’s 

Complaint (Doc. 1) is devoid of any facts to support that he is alleging a violation of 

federal law. See id. The Complaint (Doc. 1) uses terms such as “pain and suffering,” 

“predatory lending,” and “religious discrimination” without explanation as to the 

circumstances or relevance of the terms to any legal wrong. Id. at 4, 7. Plaintiff also 

indicates that Defendant allegedly “refuse[d] to accept [his] nationality” without further 
- 5 - 

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 

explanation. Id. at 7. Exhibits attached to the Complaint include a letter to President 

Obama regarding the Moorish National Republic, a name declaration, and an 

identification card application, as well as various title loan documents. See Compl. (Doc. 

1) at 9–14; see also Discl. of Fact (Doc. 6). 

 Because the jurisdictional basis of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) cannot be 

discerned, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. 

V. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) does not contain any facts beyond mere allegations 

that he suffered losses. Such “the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me” accusations are 

insufficient to state a claim under Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Further, Plaintiff’s 

Complaint (Doc. 1) fails to provide sufficient detail to put defendants on notice as to the 

nature and basis of his claims. See Brazil v. U.S. Dept. of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th 

Cir. 1995). In light of the insufficiency of the factual basis, Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 

1) will be dismissed with leave to amend. 

VI. LEAVE TO AMEND 

Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint should clearly set out each claim Plaintiff is making, and name all appropriate 

parties. Any amended complaint submitted by Plaintiff should be clearly designated as 
- 6 - 

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 

such on the face of the document. Plaintiff must also abide by the strictures discussed in 

Section IV., supra.

 An amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 

896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the original Complaint is treated 

as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Thus, grounds for relief alleged in the original 

Petition that are not alleged in an amended petition are waived. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

VII. MISCELLANEOUS FILING 

 Plaintiff also filed a document entitled MDIP Rules of Federal Civil Proceedings 

[sic] Violations (Doc. 10). The Court notes that the Complaint has not yet been served, 

and as such Defendant cannot be said to have violated any orders in this cause of action. 

As such, the Court will strike this improperly filed document from the record. 

VIII. WARNINGS 

A. Address Changes 

 Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with 

Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion 

for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in 

dismissal of this action. 

 . . . 
- 7 - 

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. Rules of Court 

 Plaintiff shall familiarize himself with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

Local Rules for the District of Arizona, both of which can be found on the Court’s web 

site at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff is advised that a Handbook for Self-Represented 

Litigants is available on the Court’s website at: http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/handbookself-represented-litigants. In addition, Step Up to Justice offers a free, advice-only clinic 

for self-represented civil litigants on Thursdays from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. If Plaintiff 

wishes to schedule a clinic appointment, she should contact the courthouse librarian, 

Mary Ann O’Neil, at MaryAnn_O’Neil@LB9.uscourts.gov. 

 C. Copies 

 Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See

LRCiv. 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further 

notice to Plaintiff. 

 D. Possible Dismissal 

 If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including 

these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action 

for failure to comply with any order of the Court). 

VIII. CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees 
- 8 - 

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 

or Costs (Doc. 2) is GRANTED; 

 (2) Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of filing of this Order to file an 

amended petition in compliance with this Order; and 

 (3) Plaintiff’s MDIP Rules of Federal Civil Proceedings [sic] Violations is 

struck from the record. 

 Dated this 29th day of November, 2017.