Kimbaly Hardwick v. Arion Care Solutions, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: February 17, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00992
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Kimbaly Hardwick, No. CV-26-00992-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Arion Care Solutions, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Kimbaly Hardwick filed a complaint and an application for leave to 16 proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2.) Hardwick is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis 17 but granting that application allows the court to determine whether the complaint states any 18 claims on which she might be able to obtain relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). It does not. 19 A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 20 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although Rule 8 does not demand 21 detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant- 22 unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 23 “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 24 statements, do not suffice.” Id. And while the court must construe a pro se complaint 25 liberally, that “does not mean that the court will supply essential elements of a claim that 26 are absent from the complaint.” Boquist v. Courtney, 32 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2022). 27 Hardwick’s complaint does not contain any meaningful factual allegations 28 explaining why she is suing the four individuals named as defendants. (The complaint 1 || identifies “Arion Care Solutions” as the defendant in its caption but only lists four 2|| individuals as the defendants later in the complaint.) In specifying the jurisdictional basis || for her suit, Hardwick checked boxes indicating her claims are brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and a collection of state and federal laws that she || identifies as providing “whistleblower protection” and “non retaliation.” (Doc. | at 3.) 7|| Hardwick then checked boxes indicating her claims are based on termination of her 8 || employment and retaliation. The allegedly discriminatory acts occurred on October 1, || 2024. (Doc. 1 at 4.) There are no additional allegations explaining the basis for this suit. 10 Hardwick attached numerous documents to her complaint. Those documents appear 11 || to be a collection of emails, texts, police reports, and court records involving Hardwick’s 12 || contacts with Arion Care Solutions and its employees. Even if it were proper to consider 13 || the documents at this stage, they do not provide any additional guidance on why Hardwick filed this suit. 15 Hardwick is given leave to file an amended complaint. If she does so, Hardwick 16 || must explain in simple terms her relationship with each defendant, what each defendant 17 || did, and why those actions were contrary to law. 18 IT IS ORDERED the Application (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH || LEAVE TO AMEND. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than March 6, 2026, plaintiff shall file an 22 || amended complaint. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal if no 23 || amended complaint 1s filed by that date. 24 Dated this 17th day of February, 2026. 25

27 AA ALLA We OC bt Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 28 United States District Judge

-2-