May v. CODAC Behavioral Health Services

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Shane P. May, No. CV-25-0232-TUC-EJM 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1

12 CODAC Behavioral Health Services, et al., 13 14 Defendants. 15 On May 16, 2025, Plaintiff Shane P. May filed a pro se Complaint (Doc. 1). 16 Plaintiff did not immediately pay the $402.00 civil action filing fee but filed an 17 Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) 18 (Doc. 2). 19 20 I. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 21 The Court may allow a plaintiff to proceed without prepayment of fees when it is 22 shown by affidavit that he “is unable to pay such fees[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 23 Plaintiff’s statement, made under penalty of perjury, establishes that Plaintiff is without 24 sufficient earned income and has no assets. The Court finds Plaintiff is unable to pay the 25 fees. The Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 26 27 1 A Magistrate Judge shall prepare a Report and Recommendation to the appropriate designee in either Tucson or Phoenix/Prescott for cases where the status of election by parties is 28 incomplete. General Order No. 21-25. Accordingly, this Report and Recommendation is directed to the Honorable Raner C. Collins. 1 (Doc. 2) will be granted. 2 3 II. STATUTORY SCREENING OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 4 This Court is required to dismiss a case if the Court determines that the allegation 5 of poverty is untrue, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A), or if the Court determines that the action 6 “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or 7 (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 8 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 9 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 10 pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. While Rule 8 does not demand 11 detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant- 12 unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 13 “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 14 statements, do not suffice.” Id. Where the pleader is pro se, however, the pleading 15 should be liberally construed in the interests of justice. Johnson v. Reagan, 524 F.2d 16 1123, 1124 (9th Cir. 1975); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 17 Nonetheless, a complaint must set forth a set of facts that serves to put defendants on 18 notice as to the nature and basis of the claim(s). See Brazil v. U.S. Dept. of Navy, 66 F.3d 19 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995). 20 A “complaint [filed by a pro se plaintiff] ‘must be held to less stringent standards 21 than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 342 (quoting Erickson v. 22 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard 23 applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 24 U.S. 506, 513 (2002). “Given the Federal Rules’ simplified standard for pleading, ‘[a] 25 court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any 26 set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.’” Id. at 514 (quoting 27 Hishon v. King & Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)) (alterations in original); see also 28 Johnson, et al. v. City of Shelby, Mississippi, 574 U.S. 10, 11 (2014) (“Federal pleading 1 rules call for ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 2 to relief,’ Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2); they do not countenance dismissal of a complaint 3 for imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted”). 4 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 5 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 6 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 7 Court should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type of 8 advice “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. 9 Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to 10 decide whether the court was required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). 11 12 III. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 13 Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) names several defendants and he checked the box to 14 indicate the Court’s jurisdiction is based on a federal question. Plaintiff has failed, 15 however, to provide any facts or cite to any laws that would provide the basis for this 16 lawsuit. The complete absence of information regarding any possible claim makes it 17 impossible for this Court to understand why Plaintiff believes he was wronged. 18 Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend. 19 20 IV. CONCLUSION 21 As noted, supra, General Order 21-25 directs this Court to prepare a Report and 22 Recommendation to the appropriate designee in either Tucson or Phoenix/Prescott. 23 Accordingly, the Court directs this Report and Recommendation to the Honorable Raner 24 C. Collins. 25 For the reasons delineated above, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the 26 District Judge enter an order: 27 (1) GRANTING Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without 28 Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2); and 1 (2) DISMISSING Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) for lack of subject matter 2 jurisdiction and a failure to state a claim and direct Plaintiff to file an Amended 3 Complaint within thirty (30) days of the District Judge’s ruling. 4 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 5 || Procedure, any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days after || being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to 7\| another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. Fed. 8 || R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). No replies shall be filed unless leave is granted from Judge Collins. 9 Failure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determination of the || Magistrate Judge may result in waiver of the right of review. 11 12 Dated this 22nd day of July, 2025. 13 Soa [ Wha C_ 15 Eric J. Mafovich United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28