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WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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 

James Jones, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bank of America NA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-17-08231-PCT-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is pro se Plaintiff James Jones’s Application for Leave to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) and Motion for Service (Doc. 4). Having determined that 

Plaintiff is unable to pay the Court’s fees, the Court grants the Application (Doc. 2). 

However, as set forth below, upon screening Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2), the Court finds that the Complaint fails to state a claim and dismisses it 

without prejudice. 

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
- 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. “The standard for determining 

whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for 

failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). 

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 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). To proceed in federal 

court, a plaintiff must allege enough in the complaint for the court to conclude it has 

subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. 

Miller, 5 Fed. Practice & Procedure § 1206 (3d ed. 2014). 

C. Sufficiency of a Claim 

 A complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint must 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)). The Court is to construe a pro se plaintiff’s 

complaint “liberally” and afford the plaintiff “the benefit of any doubt.” Watison, 668 

F.3d at 1112 (citation omitted). For purposes of dismissal, the court considers only 
- 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 

allegations contained in the complaint and those exhibits attached to the complaint. Parks 

Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). 

II. ANALYSIS 

A. Sufficiency of the Complaint 

 Upon review of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1, Compl.), the Court finds that the 

Complaint fails to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10(b). Rule 8(a) 

requires that: 

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counter-claim, cross-claim, or third-party claims, shall contain (1) a short 

and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for 

the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different 

types of relief. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

“Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 

Furthermore, the complaint must 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)). Even where a 

complaint has the factual elements of a cause of action present but scattered throughout the 

complaint and not organized into a “short and plain statement of the claim,” it may be 

dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a). Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 

640 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Rule 10(b) requires that: 

A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances. A later pleading may refer by number to a paragraph in an earlier pleading. If doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence—and each defense other than a denial—must be 

stated in a separate count or defense. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 

 Moreover, the complaint must give the defendants “fair notice of what [the 

plaintiff’s] claim is and the grounds upon which it is based.” Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 

F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005). This includes some factual basis for each claim asserted 
- 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 the specific legal theory supporting the claim. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 678. 

 Plaintiff contends that each of the named Defendants is liable for an assortment of 

violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1962. 

Plaintiff’s claims under the FDCPA are largely devoid of factual allegations 

demonstrating that Plaintiff is entitled to his requested relief. Instead, Plaintiff relies 

largely on conclusory statements that merely recite portions of the FDCPA. For example, 

Plaintiff repeatedly claims that Defendants used “false, deceptive and misleading 

representations in connection with the collection” of Plaintiff’s debt. (Compl. at 9.) 

Plaintiff, however, fails to point the Court to any factual information supporting such a 

finding. Morever, Plaintiff relies largely on group pleading throughout the Complaint 

referring collectively to “Defendants.” A plaintiff may not collectively accuse multiple 

defendants of committing misdeeds through the expedience of the title “Defendants.” 

Such group pleading fails to comply with Rule 8(a)(2) because it does not give fair notice 

of the claims against each Defendant with the requisite specificity. Riehle v. Bank of 

America, N. A., No. CV-12-00251-PHX-NVW, 2013 WL 1694442, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 

18, 2013). 

 Even further, the single discernable claim under the FDCPA fails to state a claim. 

Plaintiff alleges that two Defendants, Reverse Mortgage Solutions (“Reverse Mortgage”) 

and Bank of America, are liable for their their failure to verify Plaintiff’s debt as required 

by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. “Under this section, a debt collector must provide verification of 

the debt to the debtor, upon written request made by the debtor within 30 days after 

receipt of the initial Notice.” Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer Cty., Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 

1202 (9th Cir. 1999). If the debtor fails to make a timely written demand, the debt 

collector may assume the validity of the debt. Id. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Reverse Mortgage Solutions (“Reverse 

Mortgage”) and Bank of America mailed him the operative demands for payment of the 
- 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 

alleged debt on April 24, 2017, and June 30, 2017. (Compl. at 11.) Plaintiff, however, 

fails to allege when he received said notices, only alleging that he provided Defendants 

with requests for verification of the debts on August 7, 2017, and August 25, 2017. 

(Compl. at 5.) The date of receipt, however, is vital to Plaintiff’s claim. Because Plaintiff 

fails to establish that that he requested verification of his claim within the statutorily 

required thirty-day period, he fails to establish that the debt collectors were obligated to 

verify the debt under the FDCPA. See Mahon, 171 F.3d at 1202. Accordingly, Plaintiff 

fails to state a valid claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. 

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 

 Having found that Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the FDCPA, the Court 

dismisses the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In 

addition to his claims under the FDCPA, Plaintiff alleges several state law causes of 

action against Defendants. Plaintiff asserts federal question jurisdiction for these claims 

because the claims “involve[e] Federal Corporations and Interstate Commerce in the 

form of lending and Banking” and “violations of Plaintiffs Rights codified pursuant to 

Interstate Law/Compact entitled the Uniform Commercial Code.” (Compl. at 3.) The 

U.C.C., however, is not federal law and the mere relation to interstate commerce does not 

create federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff thus has not made the requisite showing to 

establish subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question for these additional 

claims. 

 Plaintiff additionally alleges diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This 

too fails because it appears that the Plaintiff and several Defendants are all citizens of the 

State of Arizona. (See Compl. at 1–2.) Therefore, Plaintiff fails to establish complete 

diversity among the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 

C. 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. Therefore, the 

Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity, if he so chooses, to amend his Complaint, to 
- 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 

make clear his allegations in short, plain statements and to identify specifically which 

Defendants are responsible for the conduct giving rise to his claim. 

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

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint that 

complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than 21 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. 

 Dated this 8th day of December, 2017. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge