Kauffman 360639 v. Mohave County Sheriff

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedOctober 8, 2024
Docket3:24-cv-08138
StatusUnknown

This text of Kauffman 360639 v. Mohave County Sheriff (Kauffman 360639 v. Mohave County Sheriff) 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
Kauffman 360639 v. Mohave County Sheriff, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Luke Zion Yochai-Adams-Trimmer, No. CV-24-08138-PCT-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Mohave County Sheriff, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Luke Zion Yochai-Adams-Trimmer, who is also known 16 as Zion Z. Kauffman, is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis. On July 12, 17 2024, he filed a civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1). He subsequently filed: 18 (1) an August 6 Motion to Get Case Status (Doc. 4); 19 (2) an August 6 Application to Proceed In Forma 20 Pauperis (Doc. 5); 21 (3) an August 23 Motion to Move as a Class Action (Doc. 7); 22 (4) an August 23 Motion to Get Case Status (Doc. 8); 23 (5) an August 30 Motion to Add Three Documents (Doc. 9); 24 (6) a September 4 Motion to Add Document (Doc. 10); 25 (7) a September 4 Motion to Add More Defendants (Doc. 11); 26 (8) a September 4 “Motion for the Court to Order All Government Offices, Courts, and Corporations to Send All Documents to 27 the Attorney in Fact” (Doc. 13); 28 (9) a September 5 Motion to Add More Plaintiffs (Doc. 12); (10) a September 5 Motion to Add Document (Doc. 14); 1 2 (11) a September 5 Motion to Add Three Documents (Doc. 15); 3 (12) a September 10 Motion to Get an Injunction (Doc. 16); and 4 (13) a September 17 Motion to Add Documents to Injunction Request (Doc. 17). 5 6 The Court will grant the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and will grant 7 the Motions to Get Case Status to the extent this Order provides Plaintiff with the status of 8 this action. The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend, deny the Motion 9 to Move as a Class Action and the Motion to Add More Plaintiffs, deny as premature the 10 Motion for the Court to Order, and deny as moot the Motion to Add More Defendants and 11 the multiple Motions seeking to add documents. Finally, the Court will strike the Motion 12 to Get an Injunction and Motion to Add Documents to Injunction Request. 13 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 14 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 15 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 16 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $16.62. The remainder 17 of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 18 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 19 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 20 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 21 II. Motion to Add More Plaintiffs 22 Plaintiff seeks to add multiple government agencies, a government employee, the 23 President of Israel, “Ms. Cotton,” and two corporations as plaintiffs to this action. 24 Although a non-lawyer may appear on his own behalf in his own case, a non-lawyer “has 25 no authority to appear as an attorney for others.” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 26 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 27 697 (9th Cir. 1987)). Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Add More Plaintiffs. 28 . . . . 1 III. Motion to Move as a Class Action 2 Plaintiff seeks to add six individuals “as a class action lawsuit against all part[ies] 3 listed” and requests the Court send Plaintiff the documents for those individuals “due to 4 [Plaintiff] filing all document[s].” 5 One prerequisite to maintaining a class action is that the “representative parties will 6 fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Although 7 Plaintiff may appear on his own behalf, he may not appear as an attorney for other persons 8 in a class action. McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966) (non-lawyer 9 had no authority to appear as an attorney for other persons in a purported class action); 10 Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (plain error to permit an inmate 11 proceeding pro se to represent fellow inmates in a class action). “This rule is an outgrowth 12 not only of the belief that a layman, untutored in the law, cannot ‘adequately represent’ the 13 interests of the members of the ‘class,’ but also out of the long-standing general prohibition 14 against even attorneys acting as both class representative and counsel for the class.” 15 Huddleston v. Duckworth, 97 F.R.D. 512, 514 (N.D. Ind. 1983). Thus, the Court will deny 16 Plaintiff’s Motion to Move as a Class Action. 17 IV. 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). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 21 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 22 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 23 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 24 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4 requires in part that “[a]ll complaints . . . by 25 incarcerated persons shall be signed and legibly written or typewritten on forms approved 26 by the Court and in accordance with the instructions provided with the forms.” Section 12, 27 Part C(1), of the instructions provides: 28 Supporting Facts. After you have identified which civil right was violated, you must state the supporting facts. Be as specific as possible. You must state what each individual 1 defendant did to violate your rights. If there is more than one 2 defendant, you must identify which defendant did what act. You also should state the date(s) on which the act(s) occurred, 3 if possible. 4 5 Likewise, the Supporting Facts section of each count of the court-approved form requires 6 plaintiffs to state the facts supporting each count and to: “Describe exactly what each 7 Defendant did or did not do that violated your rights. State the facts clearly in your own 8 words without citing legal authority or arguments.” 9 In the Supporting Facts section of each count, Plaintiff directs the Court and 10 Defendants to an attachment.1 This does not comply with the court-approved form and 11 instructions. Moreover, Plaintiff’s attachment is a rambling narrative that is not separated 12 by count. The Court will not comb through the attachment to determine which allegations 13 support each claim. See Ferrell v. Durbin, 311 F. App’x 253, 259 (11th Cir. 2009) 14 (“Neither this Court nor the district court is required to parse the complaint searching for 15 allegations . . . that could conceivably form the basis of each of Appellants’ claims.”); cf. 16 Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[J]udges are 17 not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” (quoting United States v. Dunkel, 927 18 F.2d 955 (7th Cir.

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

Related

Bradley v. Fisher
80 U.S. 335 (Supreme Court, 1872)
De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. v. United States
325 U.S. 212 (Supreme Court, 1945)
Pierson v. Ray
386 U.S. 547 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Imbler v. Pachtman
424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Stump v. Sparkman
435 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Polk County v. Dodson
454 U.S. 312 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons
509 U.S. 259 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Victor Frank Szijarto v. Charles F. Legeman
466 F.2d 864 (Ninth Circuit, 1972)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kauffman 360639 v. Mohave County Sheriff, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kauffman-360639-v-mohave-county-sheriff-azd-2024.