Blomdahl v. Jones

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJuly 24, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-01207
StatusUnknown

This text of Blomdahl v. Jones (Blomdahl v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Blomdahl v. Jones, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Adam Blomdahl, No. CV 20-01207-PHX-MTL (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Officer Jones, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff Adam Blomdahl, who is confined in the Arizona 16 State Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona, filed a Complaint in the Superior Court 17 of Maricopa County, Arizona, against Defendants Maricopa County, Jones, Fisk, M. 18 Ariata, D. Martin, Platta, and Randozza. On June 17, 2020, Defendant Maricopa County 19 filed a Notice of Removal and removed the case to this Court. In a June 23, 2020 Order, 20 the Court concluded the case was properly removed, dismissed the Complaint because it 21 was not filed on a court-approved form, and gave Plaintiff thirty days to file a first amended 22 complaint on a court-approved form. 23 On June 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, 24 which the Court denied as moot in a July 8, 2020 Order. On July 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a 25 First Amended Complaint (Doc. 9). The Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint 26 with leave to amend. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 2 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 3 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 5 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 7 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 8 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4 requires, in part, that “[a]ll complaints . . . by 9 incarcerated persons must be signed and legibly written or typewritten on forms approved 10 by the Court and in accordance with the instructions provided with the forms.” The 11 instructions provided with the court-approved civil rights complaint form state that a 12 plaintiff may only allege “one violation per count.” (Emphasis in original.) 13 Moreover, Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a “short and 14 plain statement of the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8(d)(1) states that “[e]ach 15 allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” A complaint having the factual elements 16 of a cause of action scattered throughout the complaint and not organized into a “short and 17 plain statement of the claim” may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a). See Sparling 18 v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 19 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996). It is not the responsibility of the Court to review a rambling 20 narrative in an attempt to determine the number and nature of a plaintiff’s claims. 21 Plaintiff’s three-count First Amended Complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal 22 Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4. Plaintiff presents 23 rambling, incoherent collections of conclusory allegations and disjointed facts against 24 fifteen Defendants and raises significantly more than one violation per count. Because the 25 Court cannot meaningfully review Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, as required by 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 II. Leave to Amend 2 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed 3 for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 4 of Civil Procedure 3.4. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a second amended complaint 5 to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court- 6 approved form to use for filing a second amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the 7 court-approved form, the Court may strike the second amended complaint and dismiss this 8 action without further notice to Plaintiff. 9 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “Second 10 Amended Complaint.” The second amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 11 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 12 Complaint or First Amended Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one 13 claim per count. 14 A second amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint and First Amended 15 Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. 16 Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court 17 will treat the original Complaint and First Amended Complaint as nonexistent. Ferdik, 18 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the original Complaint or First 19 Amended Complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without 20 prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a second amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa 21 County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 22 If Plaintiff files a second amended complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain 23 statements telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; 24 (2) the name of the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did 25 or failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation 26 of Plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of 27 that Defendant’s conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 28 . . . . 1 Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he names as a Defendant. If 2 Plaintiff fails to affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific 3 injury suffered by Plaintiff, the allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for 4 failure to state a claim. Conclusory allegations that a Defendant or group of 5 Defendants has violated a constitutional right are not acceptable and will be 6 dismissed. 7 Plaintiff should take note that although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, 8 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not 9 support a cause of action. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 10 “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 11 statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A plaintiff must 12 allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved 13 in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Blomdahl v. Jones, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blomdahl-v-jones-azd-2020.