Ryan Christopher Goff v. ALK Asphalt LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: December 1, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-04385
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Ryan Christopher Goff, No. CV-25-04385-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 ALK Asphalt LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Ryan Christopher Goff filed a complaint and an application to proceed in 16 forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 3.) The application is granted but the complaint is dismissed. See 17 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (court should dismiss in forma pauperis complaint that does not 18 state claim for relief). 19 A complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 20 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 21 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations omitted)). 22 This is not a “probability requirement,” but a requirement that the factual allegations show 23 “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. A claim is facially 24 plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 25 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Beyond 26 alleging sufficient facts, a complaint must also be based on a viable underlying legal theory. 27 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 28 The caption of Goff’s complaint lists twelve entities and individuals including an 1 asphalt company, a member of the city council, the State Bar of Arizona, and a state court 2 judge. The body of the complaint does not provide any information regarding what each 3 defendant did that prompted Goff to file this suit. In fact, the complaint does not at all even 4 approximate a normal complaint. Rather, Goff’s complaint identifies itself as an “Oversight 5 Submission” that he is “tender[ing] to federal authorities vested with the responsibility to 6 safeguard constitutional rights, enforce federal supremacy, investigate public corruption, 7 and ensure equal access to justice for disabled citizens and federally authorized 8 practitioners.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) The complaint “formally invokes the oversight” of, among 9 other entities, the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 10 the Arizona Attorney General, and the United States Congress. (Doc. 1 at 2.) 11 Based on the contents of the complaint, it appears Goff is not attempting to sue the 12 defendants listed in the caption but rather requesting that other governmental bodies 13 investigate those defendants. For example, Goff alleges some defendants allegedly 14 “[o]pened a [unauthorized practice of law] investigation” and took other actions based on 15 Goff engaging in “federally authorized legal work.” (Doc. 1 at 7.) Goff believes those 16 actions, and others, “trigger[] mandatory federal criminal review.” (Doc. 1 at 10.) 17 Goff’s complaint repeatedly and explicitly requests relief in the form of requiring 18 “federal authorities” begin investigations and presumably prosecutions. But “a private 19 citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of 20 another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). This means a private citizen 21 such as Goff “lacks standing to compel an investigation or prosecution” of others. Tia v. 22 Crim. Investigation Demanded as Set Forth, 441 F. App’x 457, 458 (9th Cir. 2011). 23 Because Goff does not have standing to seek the relief he desires, his complaint is 24 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Based on what Goff says he hoped to obtain by filing 25 this suit, leave to amend would be futile. Mikhail v. Kahn, 991 F. Supp. 2d 596, 636 (E.D. 26 Pa. 2014) (“[I]t is today beyond all reasonable doubt that [t]he prosecution of violations of 27 federal criminal law in federal court is a function of the federal government, not private 28 parties.”). 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED the Application (Doc. 3) is GRANTED. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED 4|| WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close this case. 5 Dated this Ist day of December, 2025. 6

g LK AQ TV. WCLA _ Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-