Katrin Nicole Henry v. Arizona Board of Regents

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5

9 Katrin Nicole Henry, No. CV-26-00050-TUC-RM

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Arizona Board of Regents,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff Katrin Nicole Henry initiated this action on January 27, 2026, by filing a 16 pro se Complaint (Doc. 1), and an Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 17 (Doc. 2). Plaintiff later filed an Amended Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma 18 Pauperis. (Doc. 7.) Due to numerous discrepancies between the financial disclosures in 19 the original Application and the Amended Application, the Court denied the Amended 20 Application with leave for Plaintiff to refile an application that explained the discrepancies. 21 (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff then filed a Second Amended Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma 22 Pauperis (Doc. 9), along with a Declaration (Doc. 9-1), and a copy of her 2025 income tax 23 return (Doc. 10). Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Complete 24 Service of Process (Doc. 12) and a Motion to Stay (Doc. 14). 25 For the following reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Second Amended 26 Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, deny as moot her Motion for 27 Extension of Time to Complete Service of Process and Motion to Stay, and dismiss her 28 Complaint with leave to amend. 1 I. Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 2 The Court may authorize the commencement and prosecution of any action without 3 prepayment of fees if a litigant submits an affidavit showing that she is unable to pay the 4 fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately explained the 5 discrepancies between her Applications for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, and that 6 she has adequately demonstrated that she is unable to pay the filing fees for this action. 7 Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Second Amended Application for Leave to 8 Proceed in Forma Pauperis. 9 II. Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Service of Process and 10 Motion to Stay 11 Plaintiff asks the Court to extend her deadline for completing service of process 12 (Doc. 12) and to stay any dismissal deadlines (Doc. 14). 13 When a plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will order the 14 United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) to complete service of process on the plaintiff’s 15 behalf. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). However, as discussed below, 16 Plaintiff’s Complaint is being dismissed on screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 17 Accordingly, the Court will not direct USMS to complete service of process at this time. 18 If Plaintiff files an amended complaint and the Court determines that the amended 19 complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, the Court will at that time issue a 20 service order setting a deadline to effect service. 21 Because the Court will order USMS to complete service of process if and when 22 Plaintiff files a complaint that survives screening under § 1915(e)(2), the Court will deny 23 as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Service of Process and 24 Motion to Stay. 25 III. Statutory Screening of Complaints 26 The Prison Litigation Reform Act states that a district court “shall dismiss” an in 27 forma pauperis complaint if, at any time, the court determines that the action “is frivolous 28 or malicious” or that it “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e) “applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those 2 filed by prisoners.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); see also 3 Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). 4 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 5 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 6 required, but Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully harmed- 7 me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the 8 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 9 Id. 10 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 11 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell 12 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the 13 plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that 14 the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint 15 states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing 16 court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a 17 plaintiff’s specific factual allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court 18 must assess whether there are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. 19 Id. at 681. 20 The Court must “construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 21 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A complaint filed by a pro se litigant “must be held to less stringent 22 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). 23 Nevertheless, “a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential 24 elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 25 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 26 If the Court determines that a complaint could be cured by the allegation of other 27 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend the complaint before dismissal 28 of the action. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127-29. 1 IV. Plaintiff’s Complaint 2 Plaintiff, a former student at the University of Arizona College of Pharmacy, alleges 3 in her Complaint that faculty and staff at the College of Pharmacy discriminated against 4 her because she refused the COVID-19 vaccine for religious reasons; that an instructor 5 made unwanted sexual advances toward and retaliated against her; that another instructor 6 misinterpreted a get-well bouquet as inappropriate, then retaliated against and stalked 7 Plaintiff; that University employees failed to accommodate Plaintiff after she injured 8 herself in a fall on a staircase; and that the College of Pharmacy expelled Plaintiff based 9 on failing grades without timely posting grades or offering an adequate grade appeal 10 process. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, forgiveness of her student loans, and 11 removal of complaints, concerns, and non-passing grades from her school records. (Id. at 12 27-28.)1 13 Plaintiff lists only the Arizona Board of Regents as a named defendant, but in the 14 first numbered paragraph of the Complaint, she refers to “defendants” in the plural, and 15 she states that she is suing not only the Arizona Board of Regents but also the College of 16 Pharmacy and the University of Arizona. (Doc. 1 at 1-3.) Furthermore, Plaintiff identifies 17 numerous individuals by name in the factual allegations of the Complaint, and it is unclear 18 whether she is intending to include any of those individuals as defendants in this action. 19 The Complaint purports to bring four causes of action, but each count bundles 20 together numerous distinct legal theories. In the First Cause of Action, Plaintiff alleges 21 religious discrimination, retaliation, and defamation, in violation of the First Amendment 22 to the United States Constitution, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 23 1983, the Emergency Use Authorization for the COVID-19 Vaccine (“EUA”), Arizona 24 Attorney General Opinion No. 121-007, the Arizona Civil Rights Act, Arizona Executive 25 Order 2021-15, the University Nondiscrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy, and the 26 University HIPPA Policy. (Doc. 1 at 3, 24-25 ¶¶ 1, 121-124.) In the Second Cause of 27 Action, Plaintiff alleges sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the

28 1 All record citations refer to the page numbers generated by the Court’s electronic filing system. 1 Arizona Civil Rights Act. (Id. at 5, 25-26 ¶¶ 11, 125-130.) In the Third Cause of Action, 2 Plaintiff alleges disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities 3 Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act, the 2022 CDC Clinical Guidance for COVID-19 4 Vaccination, and the University ADA/504 Compliance Policy. (Id. at 6, 26 ¶¶ 15, 131- 5 134.) In the Fourth Cause of Action, Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fourteenth 6 Amendment to the United States Constitution and the University Grade Appeal Policy. (Id. 7 at 726-27 ¶¶ 23, 135-138.) The Complaint includes 84 paragraphs of “Facts Common to 8 All Accounts [sic],” and each Count purports to incorporate all preceding allegations. 9 V. Discussion 10 A complaint is properly characterized as a shotgun pleading if: (1) it contains 11 multiple counts, with each count adopting the allegations of all preceding counts, “causing 12 each successive count to be a combination of the entire complaint”; (2) it contains 13 numerous “conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any 14 particular cause of action”; (3) it fails to separate each cause of action or claim for relief 15 into a distinct count; or (4) it “asserts multiple claims against multiple defendants without 16 specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which 17 of the defendants the claim is brought against.” Gibson v. City of Portland, 165 F.4th 1265, 18 1288 (9th Cir. 2026). “[D]istrict courts do not have to accept such shotgun pleadings,” as 19 “[i]t is not the job of the district courts to make sense of the pleading, to supply facts to 20 support the claim, or to imagine the claims that might fit the facts.” Id. at 1289. 21 Here, Plaintiff has lumped numerous legal theories together in each Count and has 22 failed to clearly articulate which factual allegations support which specific claims.2 23 Plaintiff’s Complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading that fails to provide sufficient 24 notice of Plaintiff’s claims and their basis. The Complaint does not comply with Rule 8’s 25 requirement of providing a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 26 is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The Court will accordingly dismiss Plaintiff’s 27 2 Furthermore, as discussed above, Plaintiff has listed only the Arizona Board of Regents 28 as a named defendant, but it is not entirely clear if she is intending to also sue other entities or individuals. 1 Complaint with leave to amend. 2 The Court notes that the following legal defects in the Complaint cannot be cured 3 by amendment. First, the Arizona Board of Regents is treated as an arm of the State and 4 is not a “person” subject to damages liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Will v. Michigan 5 Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989) (“[A] State is not a person within the meaning 6 of § 1983.”); Kay v. Likins, 160 F. App’x 605, 607 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The University of 7 Arizona is an ‘arm’ of the State,” and “neither the school nor the Arizona Board of Regents 8 . . . may be sued under § 1983”). Second, the EUA, internal University policies, Arizona 9 Executive Order, Arizona Attorney General Opinion, and CDC guidance referenced in the 10 Complaint do not create private causes of action. Accordingly, the Complaint will be 11 dismissed with prejudice to the extent it asserts § 1983 claims for damages against the 12 Arizona Board of Regents, and to the extent it asserts claims directly under the EUA, 13 internal University policies, Arizona Attorney General Opinion No. 121-007, Arizona 14 Executive Order 2021-15, and CDC guidance. Because these claims are dismissed with 15 prejudice, Plaintiff may not re-assert them in an amended complaint. 16 VI. Leave to Amend 17 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty days. An amended complaint 18 supersedes the original Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 19 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). 20 After amendment, the Court will treat the original Complaint as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 21 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action raised in the original Complaint and voluntarily 22 dismissed or dismissed without prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a second amended 23 complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 24 If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, she must clearly separate her legal claims, 25 identify which specific facts support each specific claim, specifically name each defendant 26 that is being sued, state exactly what each defendant did or failed to do, and explain what 27 specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of each defendant’s conduct. Conclusory 28 allegations that a defendant or group of defendants violated the law are not acceptable and || will be dismissed. 2 VIL Warnings 3 If Plaintiff's address changes, she must file and serve a notice of a change of address 4|| in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not 5 || include a motion for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may 6 || result in dismissal of this action. 7 If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these 8 || warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d 9|| at 1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of || the Court). 11 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Second Amended Application for Leave to 12 || Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 9) is granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in 13 || this action without pre-paying the filing fees. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 12) and Motion to Stay (Doc. 14) are denied as moot. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed 17|| with leave to amend, as set forth above. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint 18 || correcting the deficiencies addressed herein within thirty (30) days of the date this Order is filed. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within thirty days, the Clerk of Court || is directed to dismiss this action without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff. 21 Dated this 24th day of April, 2026.

Honorable Rostvhary □□ 25 United States District □□□□□□ 26] 3 Plaintiff may wish to review the Court’s informational Handbook for Self-Represented 77 Litigants, available at https://www.azd.uscourts.gov/handbook-self-represented-litigants, Biep Up to Tustice Pro Bono Law Center have collaborated 1o offer a free, adviee-only || clinic to the public. More information is available at https://www.azd.uscourts.gov/fed eral-court-advice-only-clinic-phoenix [https://perma.cc/P2FA-X68N]. -7-