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 

Deborah H. Brown, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arizona Department of Corrections, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-17-4298-PHX-DKD

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Deborah H. Brown has filed a complaint and a request that she not be 

required to pay the filing fee because she cannot afford it. When a Plaintiff asks that the 

filing fee be waived because of an inability to pay the Court is required to evaluate the 

Plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether the complaint sets forth a case that is properly 

in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th

Cir. 2000) (“It is also clear that [§] 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court 

to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint [meaning a complaint filed without the 

prepayment of the filing fee] that fails to state a claim” on which relief may be granted.). 

The federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction” which means that the United States 

Constitution and laws of the United States limit what cases may be brought in federal 

court. Most lawsuits therefore are properly brought in state courts, which are courts of 

“general jurisdiction”. 

 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the Arizona Department of Corrections refused to 

employ Plaintiff in violation of “the Title VII Act, ADA [presumably the Age 
- 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 

Discrimination Act] and EPA [presumably the Equal Pay Act].” In particular, Plaintiff 

appears to complain that the Department of Corrections refused to hire her because of her 

past marijuana use. Plaintiff does not explain how an ADOC policy regulating the hiring 

of individuals with prior marijuana use violates any of the laws she cites (“the Title VII 

Act, ADA and EPA.”). 

 Moreover, there is another problem with Plaintiff’s complaint because she names 

the Arizona Department of Corrections, an agency of the state of Arizona, as the 

Defendant. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits 

individuals from suing states in federal court unless the Congress has removed that 

immunity. The Supreme Court has held that the states remain immune from suit in 

federal court by an individual for claims alleging employment actions violating the ADA. 

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374, 121 S.Ct. 

955, 967-68 (2001); Wennihan v. AHCCCS, 515 F.Supp.2d 1040, 1047 (D.Ariz. 2005). 

While the Plaintiff’s EPA claim may not be precluded by Arizona’s sovereign immunity, 

it is unclear how Plaintiff can assert an EPA claim when the Defendant never hired or 

employed Plaintiff. “To make out a case under the Equal Pay Act, a plaintiff must prove 

that an employer is paying different wages to employees of opposite sex for equal work.” 

Hein v. Oregon College of Education, 718 F.2d 910, 913 (9th Cir.1983), citing Corning 

Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 195, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 2228 (1974). 

Notwithstanding these problems, if a defective complaint can be cured, the 

plaintiff is entitled to amend the complaint before the action is dismissed. See Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-30 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, the Court will give Plaintiff 

an opportunity to amend her complaint. In the amended complaint, each claim of an 

alleged violation must be set forth in a separate count, and the factual allegations must 

be separately numbered. Any amended complaint filed by Plaintiff must conform to 

the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in particular Rule 81

. Plaintiff 

 

1

 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the Court’s Local Rules and a 

handbook to guide unrepresented parties are available at the District Court’s website: www.azd.uscourts.gov (click on the link “For Those Proceeding Without an Attorney”). 
- 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 

must take care in her amended complaint to specify how it is that the actions she 

complains of violate each act she cites (“the Title VII Act, ADA and EPA.”). If 

Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, or if Plaintiff files an amended complaint 

and fails to comply with the instructions in this Order, the assigned magistrate judge 

will issue a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Complaint, or 

amended complaint, be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and Rule 41(b) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, 

the Court will then rule on the pending motion seeking to file without the prepayment of 

fees. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court without 

Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) will be held in abeyance pending the filing of an 

amended complaint. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty one days of this Order Plaintiff 

must file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies identified in this Order. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not file an amended 

complaint that complies with the instructions in this Order, within twenty one days of this 

Order, the assigned magistrate judge will issue a Report and Recommendation 

recommending that the Complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and Rule 

41(b). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff files a compliant amended 

complaint, it may not be served until the Court screens the amended complaint pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

 Dated this 19th day of December, 2017.