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 

Robert Gene Stokes, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

San Francisco Park, et al., 

 Defendants.

No. CV-18-0721-PHX-DKD

ORDER 

This Order addresses Plaintiff’s request to proceed without the prepayment of fees 

because of his indigency, as well as the Complaint Plaintiff filed on March 6, 2018. 

 In every case where a Plaintiff seeks to file a case without the prepayment of fees 

the Court is required to analyze plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether that complaint 

should be dismissed because it is not a case that is properly brought in federal court. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff’s complaint appears to allege an incident that 

occurred in 1985. If Plaintiff believes he suffered an offense of criminal assault he may 

wish to contact the Phoenix and/or San Francisco Police Departments. There is however 

nothing in Plaintiff’s complaint which demonstrates the existence of federal court 

jurisdiction in this case. 

 Plaintiff should understand that the federal courts of the United States are courts of 

limited jurisdiction and only matters that are authorized under the Constitution or laws of 

the United States may be brought in federal court. In contrast, the state courts are courts 

of general jurisdiction and thus most matters are properly heard in state courts. 
- 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 

 If there is federal jurisdiction for this case, Plaintiff’s complaint must show that 

this is so. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (available on-line or in any public 

library) require that Plaintiff’s complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the 

grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1). Again, 

federal court jurisdiction is limited to matters arising under the constitution and laws of 

the United States (this is called “federal question jurisdiction”) or cases where citizens of 

different states are the plaintiff and defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000 (this is called “diversity jurisdiction”). If Plaintiff contends that federal question 

jurisdiction exists, Plaintiff must specifically state which Constitutional provision or 

federal statute confers such jurisdiction. A general or non-specific reference to the 

Constitution or laws of the United States is insufficient. Moreover, federal courts are 

required to respect state court proceedings and may decline to exercise jurisdiction over 

matters where a state court is engaged. Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 

U.S. 496 (1941). It may well be that Plaintiff’s grievances may be addressed in the 

Superior Courts for the State of Arizona and/or California. 

 To provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to allege federal court jurisdiction if 

Plaintiff thinks it exists, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. 

Any amended complaint must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 

therefore must satisfy the jurisdictional showing discussed above as well as set forth “a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Plaintiff must take care to set forth specifically 

which federal statute or provision of the U.S. Constitution was violated by which 

defendant. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint 

complying with this Order within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. The 

Court will hold in abeyance its ruling on Plaintiff’s request to proceed without the 

prepayment of fees and costs until after it has had the opportunity to review Plaintiff’s 
- 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 

amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this Order may result 

in the dismissal of this matter. 

 Dated this 15th day of March, 2018.