Kauffman 360639 v. Torman

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedOctober 8, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-01721
StatusUnknown

This text of Kauffman 360639 v. Torman (Kauffman 360639 v. Torman) 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. Torman, (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-24-01721-PHX-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Department of Child Safety, 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 Pauperis (Doc. 5); 20 (3) an August 23 Motion to Get Case Status (Doc. 7); 21 (4) an August 23 Motion to Move as a Class Action (Doc. 8); 22 (5) an August 30 Motion to Add Three Documents (Doc. 9); 23 (6) a September 5 Motion to Add More Plaintiffs (Doc. 10); 24 (7) a September 5 Motion to Add Three Documents (Doc. 11); 25 (8) a September 5 Motion to Add Documents (Doc. 12); 26 (9) a September 10 Motion to Get an Injunction (Doc. 13); and 27 (10) a September 17 Motion to Add Documents to Injunction 28 Request (Doc. 14). 1 The Court will grant the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will 2 grant the Motions to Get Case Status to the extent this Order provides Plaintiff with the 3 status of this action. The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend, deny the 4 Motion to Move as a Class Action and the Motion to Add More Plaintiffs, and deny as 5 moot the multiple Motions seeking to add documents. Finally, the Court will strike the 6 Motion to Get an Injunction and Motion to Add Documents to Injunction Request. 7 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 8 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 9 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 10 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $16.62. The remainder 11 of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 12 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 13 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 14 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 15 II. Motion to Add More Plaintiffs 16 Plaintiff seeks to add multiple government agencies, a government employee, the 17 President of Israel, “Ms. Cotton,” and two corporations as plaintiffs to this action. 18 Although a non-lawyer may appear on his own behalf in his own case, a non-lawyer “has 19 no authority to appear as an attorney for others.” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 20 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 21 697 (9th Cir. 1987)). Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Add More Plaintiffs. 22 III. Motion to Move as a Class Action 23 Plaintiff seeks to add six individuals “as a class action lawsuit against all part[ies] 24 listed” and requests the Court send Plaintiff the documents for those individuals “due to 25 [Plaintiff] filing all document[s].” 26 One prerequisite to maintaining a class action is that the “representative parties will 27 fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Although 28 Plaintiff may appear on his own behalf, he may not appear as an attorney for other persons 1 in a class action. McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966) (non-lawyer 2 had no authority to appear as an attorney for other persons in a purported class action); 3 Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (plain error to permit an inmate 4 proceeding pro se to represent fellow inmates in a class action). “This rule is an outgrowth 5 not only of the belief that a layman, untutored in the law, cannot ‘adequately represent’ the 6 interests of the members of the ‘class,’ but also out of the long-standing general prohibition 7 against even attorneys acting as both class representative and counsel for the class.” 8 Huddleston v. Duckworth, 97 F.R.D. 512, 514 (N.D. Ind. 1983). Thus, the Court will deny 9 Plaintiff’s Motion to Move as a Class Action. 10 IV. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 11 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 12 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 13 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 14 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 15 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 16 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 17 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4 requires in part that “[a]ll complaints . . . by 18 incarcerated persons shall be signed and legibly written or typewritten on forms approved 19 by the Court and in accordance with the instructions provided with the forms.” Section 12, 20 Part C(1), of the instructions provides: 21 Supporting Facts. After you have identified which civil right was violated, you must state the supporting facts. Be as 22 specific as possible. You must state what each individual 23 defendant did to violate your rights. If there is more than one defendant, you must identify which defendant did what act. 24 You also should state the date(s) on which the act(s) occurred, 25 if possible. 26 Likewise, the Supporting Facts section of each count of the court-approved form requires 27 plaintiffs to state the facts supporting each count and to: “Describe exactly what each 28 1 Defendant did or did not do that violated your rights. State the facts clearly in your own 2 words without citing legal authority or arguments.” 3 In the Supporting Facts section of each count, Plaintiff states: “Count[s] 1, 2 and 3 4 are continued on Affidavit[.] See Att[ach]ment listed as B3 of 5.” This does not comply 5 with the court-approved form and instructions. Moreover, Plaintiff’s attachment is a 6 rambling narrative that is not separated by count. The Court will not comb through the 7 attachment to determine which allegations support each claim. See Ferrell v. Durbin, 311 8 F. App’x 253, 259 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Neither this Court nor the district court is required to 9 parse the complaint searching for allegations . . . that could conceivably form the basis of 10 each of Appellants’ claims.”); cf. Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 11 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[J]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” 12 (quoting United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955 (7th Cir. 1991))). 13 The Court will therefore dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint, with leave 14 to amend, so Plaintiff can file an amended complaint on a court-approved form and in 15 accordance with the instructions provided with the form. 16 V. Leave to Amend 17 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint on a court-approved 18 form.

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)
Miller v. Pate
386 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Califano v. Torres
435 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Stump v. Sparkman
435 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984)
United States v. James C. Dunkel
927 F.2d 955 (Seventh Circuit, 1991)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
In re: Austin v.
8 F. App'x 253 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)
Devose v. Herrington
42 F.3d 470 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)
Nicholas v. Tucker
114 F.3d 17 (Second Circuit, 1997)
Huddleston v. Duckworth
97 F.R.D. 512 (N.D. Indiana, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kauffman 360639 v. Torman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kauffman-360639-v-torman-azd-2024.