Gwen v. Masher

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided October 9, 2020·No. 3:20-cv-08225·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 8 9 Gerald Vaughn Gwen, No. CV 20-08225-PCT-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Scott Mascher, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On August 27, 2020, Plaintiff Gerald Vaughn Gwen, who is confined in the Yavapai 16 County Detention Center, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint, a Motion for a Temporary 17 Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, a Declaration to TRO Application, and a 18 Motion for Expedited Processing. In a September 8, 2020 Order, the Court gave Plaintiff 19 thirty days to either pay the filing and administrative fees or file a complete Application to 20 Proceed In Forma Pauperis, dismissed the Complaint for failure to comply with Rule 3.4 21 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, denied without prejudice the Motion for a 22 Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, denied as moot the Motion for 23 Expedited Processing, and gave Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint that 24 cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. On September 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a 25 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, which the Court denied as moot in a September 26 18, 2020 Order because the Court had already granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended 27 complaint. 28 . . . . 1 On September 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma 2 Pauperis (Doc. 11), a Response to Court’s Order Directing Resubmission (Doc. 12), a 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 13), a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 14), a Declaration 4 in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 5 Injunction (Doc. 15), and a Motion for Expedited Processing of TRO and 6 Extension (Doc. 16).1 The Court will grant the Application to Proceed, dismiss the First 7 Amended Complaint with leave to amend, and deny Plaintiff’s Motions, Response, and 8 Declaration. 9 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 10 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 11 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 13 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 14 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 16 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 17 II. Response to Court’s Order Directing Resubmission 18 In his Response, Plaintiff states that in the September 8, 2020 Order, the Court listed 19 “multiple authorities that read[] like an order as to why the Complaint will not succeed.” 20 He asserts that “although some of the points are helpful and appreciated, the written order 21 also has the tendency to imply defeat” and contends that “[t]he majority of the issues the 22 Court raised . . . are matters for a jury to decide.” Plaintiff discusses the information he 23 believes is erroneous and requests the Court “afford a pro se litigant equal[] opportunity 24 and fairness in the process to have his claim adjudicated on the merits.” 25 . . . .

26 1 Both the Response to Court’s Order and Motion to Appoint Counsel lists multiple 27 case numbers. Plaintiff should take note that he may not file a single pleading with more than one case number on it. If Plaintiff wants the Court to take action in more than one 28 of his cases, he must file a separate original pleading and copy for the Judge, with the appropriate case number, in each of the cases. 1 In the September 8, 2020 Order, the Court dismissed the Complaint because 2 Plaintiff had failed to comply with Rule 3.4 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. In 3 granting Plaintiff leave to amend, the Court gave Plaintiff information in an attempt to 4 provide guidance if Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Because Plaintiff has filed an 5 amended complaint, the Court will deny as moot Plaintiff’s Response. 6 III. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 7 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 8 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 9 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 10 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 11 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 12 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 13 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a “short and plain 14 statement of the claim.” Rule 8(d)(1) states that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, 15 and direct.” A complaint having the factual elements of a cause of action scattered 16 throughout the complaint and not organized into a “short and plain statement of the claim” 17 may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a). See Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 18 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 19 1996). 20 Plaintiff’s eight-count First Amended Complaint is primarily based on Plaintiff’s 21 assertion that Defendants were involved in a “conspiracy . . . to convict and deprive 22 Plaintiff of his liberty.” However, Plaintiff is involved in three cases in the Superior Court 23 in Yavapai County.2 Because Plaintiff’s allegations cover a five-year timeframe, it is 24 impossible for the Court to ascertain which allegations pertain to a particular criminal case. 25 This is relevant because Plaintiff has already been convicted and sentenced in Yavapai 26

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

Gwen v. Masher, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Gwen v. Masher (Gwen v. Masher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related