Detlef v. Poku

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: October 4, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01573
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Siearra Marie Ray Detlef, No. CV-23-01573-PHX-MTL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Gideon Addai Poku, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Siearra Marie Ray Detlef’s Application to 16 Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). For the following 17 reasons, the Court exercises its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismisses 18 Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend. 19 I. IFP APPLICATION 20 Plaintiff’s Application indicates that Plaintiff has insufficient funds to prepay the 21 filing fee for this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application (Doc. 2) is granted. 22 II. STATUTORY SCREENING OF IFP COMPLAINTS 23 The Court is required to screen complaints brought in forma pauperis.* 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(e)(2). The Court must dismiss a Complaint, or portion thereof, if a plaintiff has 25 raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 26 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 27 such relief. Id.

28 * Although § 1915 largely concerns prisoner litigation, § 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings. Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001). 1 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 2 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While Rule 8 does not demand detailed 3 factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully- 4 harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals 5 of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not 6 suffice.” Id. 7 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 8 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 9 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 10 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 11 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 12 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 13 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. 14 The Ninth Circuit has instructed that courts must “continue to construe pro se filings 15 liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro 16 se individual] ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 17 lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 18 Conclusory and vague allegations, however, are not sufficient to support a motion to 19 dismiss. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 20 A liberal interpretation may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not 21 initially pled. Id. 22 III. DISCUSSION 23 Although difficult to decipher, it appears that Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the 24 following violations: 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 18 U.S.C. § 242; 18 U.S.C. § 245; 42 25 U.S.C. § 3631; 42 U.S.C. § 14141 for “coercive sexual conduct, sexual extortion, 26 malfeasance, abuse of authority, wrongful removal of a child, PL 118.1, [and] color of 27 law.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) Pursuant to Rule 8, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement 28 of her claims. Plaintiff lists alleged violations and does not specifically provide 1 information regarding how her alleged federal constitutional or statutory rights were 2 violated in relation to her descriptions of alleged events. 3 Even with the most liberal review, Plaintiff’s Complaint falls far short of satisfying 4 the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The Court will dismiss the 5 Complaint with leave to amend. See Myers-Armstrong v. Actavis Totowa, LLC, 382 F. 6 App’x 545, 547 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming dismissal for failure to state a claim in part 7 because the complaint gave “no notice of the alleged illegal act and, therefore, fail[ed] to 8 satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), because it [did] not set forth ‘a short plain 9 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’”); see also Kennedy v. 10 Andrews, No. CV052692PHXNVW, 2005 WL 3358205, at *3 (D. Ariz. 2005) (dismissing 11 the complaint, in part, after conducting an in forma pauperis screening because the 12 complaint failed to comply with Rule 8). 13 IV. LEAVE TO AMEND 14 Plaintiff will be given an opportunity, if she so chooses, to amend her Complaint to 15 make clear her allegations in short, plain statements with each claim for relief identified in 16 separate sections. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff must write out the rights she believes 17 were violated, the name of the person and/or entity who violated the right, exactly what 18 that individual or entity did or failed to do, how the action or inaction of that person and/or 19 entity is connected to the violation of her rights, and what specific injury she suffered 20 because of the other person and/or entity’s conduct. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371– 21 72, 377 (1976). Each claim of an alleged violation must be set forth in a separate count. 22 V. CONCLUSION 23 Accordingly, 24 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court 25 Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) with 27 leave to file an amended complaint no later than October 25, 2023. 28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects not to file an amended || complaint by October 25, 2023, the Clerk shall dismiss this action without further order of || this Court. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects to file an amended Complaint, 4|| the Complaint may not be served until and unless the Court screens the amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 6 Dated this 4th day of October, 2023. 7 Wichal T. dh urgl Michael T. Liburdi 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-