Hunter 038313 v. Rand

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedOctober 6, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-03535
StatusUnknown

This text of Hunter 038313 v. Rand (Hunter 038313 v. Rand) 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
Hunter 038313 v. Rand, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 James Ray Hunter, No. CV-25-03535-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Lucy M. Rand, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 I. Procedural History 16 On March 19, 2025, Plaintiff James Ray Hunter, who is confined in the Arizona 17 State Prison Complex-Yuma, filed a Complaint (Doc. 1-2 at 2-9)1 in the Superior Court of 18 Maricopa County, Arizona, against Lucy Rand, Paul Edward Carter, Luci Danielle Davis, 19 Laura Louise Roubicek, Michael Evan Gottfried, Alan Cuen, and Ashley Oddo.2 On 20 September 25, 2025, Defendant Davis filed a Notice of Removal and removed the case to 21 this Court. On October 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Objection/Opposition to the Notice of 22 Removal and a Request to Remand. (Doc. 4.) On October 2, 2025, Defendants Davis and 23 Oddo filed a Motion for Screening. (Doc. 5.) 24 II. Removal 25 A state court defendant may remove to federal court any civil action brought in the 26

27 1 The citation refers to the document and page number generated by the Court’s 28 Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system. 2 Plaintiff spelled this Defendant’s surname as “Otto.” 1 state court over which the federal district courts would have original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1441(a). In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Defendants violated 3 his First Amendment rights. This Court’s jurisdiction extends to such claims. See 28 4 U.S.C. § 1331 (a federal court has original jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under 5 the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”). 6 In his Objection, Plaintiff contends the Notice of Removal is untimely because it 7 was not filed within 30 days of service on Defendant Oddo, which occurred on July 3, 8 2025. Plaintiff asks the Court to remand this case to the state court. 9 A notice of removal must be filed within 30 days after receipt of the initial pleading 10 by service or otherwise. See 28 U.S.C. § 1466(b). “[E]ach defendant is entitled to thirty 11 days to exercise his removal rights after being served.” Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 12 956 (9th Cir. 2011). Defendant Davis waived service of the Complaint on September 25, 13 2025, and filed the Notice of Removal the same day. The Notice of Removal was therefore 14 timely. Defendant Davis states that all Defendants who have been properly joined and 15 served in this action to date consent to the removal of this action. Removal was proper, 16 and Plaintiff’s Objection and Request to Remand will be denied. 17 III. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 18 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 19 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). After screening is complete, the Court will notify the parties if an 21 answer to the Complaint or any subsequently filed amended complaint is required. 22 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims 23 that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 24 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 25 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the 26 allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint 27 before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) 28 (en banc). 1 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4 requires in part that “[a]ll complaints . . . by 2 incarcerated persons must be signed and legibly written or typewritten on forms approved 3 by the Court and in accordance with the instructions provided with the forms.” Plaintiff’s 4 Complaint is not on the court-approved form. The Court may, in its discretion, forgo the 5 requirement that a plaintiff use a court-approved form. See LRCiv 3.4. The Court will 6 require use of the court-approved form because Plaintiff’s Complaint substantially fails to 7 provide the information required by the court-approved form. Thus, the Court will dismiss 8 Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend, in order for Plaintiff to 9 file an amended complaint on a court-approved form. 10 IV. Leave to Amend 11 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint on a court-approved 12 form. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first 13 amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike 14 the amended complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 15 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 16 Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 17 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 18 Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 19 A first amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 20 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 21 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat the original Complaint 22 as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the 23 original Complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without prejudice 24 is waived if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 25 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 26 V. Warnings 27 A. Address Changes 28 Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 1 | 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action. 4 B. Possible Dismissal 5 If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of 8 | the Court). 9) ITIS ORDERED: 10 (1) Plaintiff's Objection/Opposition to the Notice of Removal and Request to 11 | Remand (Doc. 4) is denied. 12 (2) Defendants’ Motion for Screening (Doc. 5) is denied as moot. 13 (3) — Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1-2 at 2-9) is dismissed for failure to file on a 14 | court-approved form. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first 15 | amended complaint in compliance with this Order. 16 (4) — If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of 17 | Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without 18 | prejudice and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot. 19 (5) The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a court-approved form for filing a 20 | civil rights complaint by a prisoner. 21 Dated this 6th day of October, 2025. 22

24 5 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 26 27 28

Instructions for a Prisoner Filing a Civil Rights Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

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

Related

Destfino v. Reiswig
630 F.3d 952 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Johnnie T. Warren
25 F.3d 890 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
McMahon v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
896 F.2d 17 (Second Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hunter 038313 v. Rand, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-038313-v-rand-azd-2025.