David Cramer v. State of Arizona, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: February 12, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-04258
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 David Cramer, No. CV-25-04258-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 State of Arizona, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 On December 3, 2025, this Court struck the first filing in this case finding it was not 16 a “complaint” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3. (Doc. 5). Because there was no 17 qualifying complaint, this “case” should never have been opened; therefore, it was closed. 18 (Id.). 19 On January 23, 2026, Plaintiff David Cramer1 filed a motion to reopen this case 20 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (Doc. 6). Plaintiff argues he should have had 21 an opportunity to correct his complaint before dismissal and lodged a proposed amended 22 complaint. (Docs. 6-7). 23 While in certain circumstances the Court of Appeals has held that the district court 24 should give a plaintiff leave to amend if the deficiencies in the complaint could possibly 25 be cured by amendment,2 that holding does not apply here. That holding does not apply 26 because, in this case, Plaintiff did not file a deficient “complaint”, he filed something that

27 1 As noted in the Order at Doc. 5, originally this case was filed by a non-attorney claiming to be an “attorney in fact.” 28 2 See, e.g., Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212–1213 (9th Cir. 2012). 1 || was not a “complaint” at all. Thus, there was nothing to amend. 2 As stated in the Order at Doc. 5, what Plaintiff (through his “attorney in fact’) filed 3 || was a ruse to attempt to get this Court to authenticate (via an exemplification) what 4|| appeared to be forged orders from the Maricopa County Superior Court. Thus, what was filed at Doc. 1 did not seek any relief. It was just a vessel to which to attach the Superior 6|| Court “orders” and then seek an exemplification of those “orders” as if they had been 7 || recognized as valid by this Court. 8 Again, as stated in Doc. 5, this Court cannot authenticate documents of other courts, 9|| even if they were real. Any such authentication must be done by the issuing court for the □□ very reason at issue in this case — namely, that this Court has no way of knowing if the |) documents purporting to be from the Maricopa County Superior Court are real or || fabricated. 13 Even in his Rule 60 motion, Plaintiff continues to seek this “relief”. (Doc. 6 stating 14]| “The dismissal [in this case] prevents the enforcement of a final State Order.”). This Court 15} does not “enforce” orders of other courts. The correct forum to seek such enforcement is the issuing court. Accordingly, even if Doc. 1 had been a complaint that was subject to 17|| amendment, any amendment would be futile because this Court does not enforce or |} authenticate orders of other courts — which is what Plaintiff seeks. See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that futility alone justifies denying leave to 20 || amend). 21 Thus, based on the foregoing, 22 IT IS ORDERED that the motion to reopen this case (Doc. 6) is denied. 23 Dated this 11th day of February, 2026. 24

26 7 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 28

-2-