Tripp v. Cochise, County of

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: July 24, 2025
• Docket: 4:24-cv-00604
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Sandra Tripp, No. CV-24-00604-TUC-JGZ (MSA)

10 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 v.

12 County of Cochise, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 This pro se action is brought by Plaintiff Sandra Tripp. On February 6, 2025, the 16 Court screened her complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Doc. 13.) The Court 17 found that Plaintiff’s short and vague factual statement is insufficient to state a claim to 18 relief and thus dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. See McKeever v. Block, 19 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating that a magistrate judge can dismiss a complaint 20 with leave to amend). Plaintiff was given until March 7 to file an amended complaint. She 21 moved to extend that deadline four times, asserting among other things that she needed 22 more time to obtain evidence from Cochise County. (Docs. 14, 16, 22, 25.) The Court 23 granted the requested extensions. (Docs. 15, 18, 24, 28.) In doing so, the Court clarified 24 that Plaintiff’s burden to allege a plausible claim does not require her to submit evidence. 25 (Docs. 18, 28.) The Court warned Plaintiff that the fourth extension would be the last one 26 granted by the undersigned magistrate judge and that if she “fail[ed] to file an amended 27 pleading by the deadline,” the Court would “recommend that the presiding district judge 28 dismiss this case without prejudice.” (Doc. 28.) 1 Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the July 7 deadline. Instead, she filed 2 a fifth motion to extend the filing deadline based on her inability to find counsel and obtain 3 “complete evidence.” (Doc. 29.) The motion will be denied by separate order. 4 To survive screening, the “complaint must allege ‘enough facts to state a claim to 5 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Tohono O’odham Nation v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 6 138 F.4th 1189, 1199 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 706 F.3d 7 1017, 1019 (9th Cir. 2013)). As explained in the screening order, Plaintiff’s complaint 8 includes only a few vague allegations against Cochise County. Plaintiff thus fails to state a 9 claim against any of the named Defendants. The Court will recommend that the presiding 10 district judge affirm the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim. 11 “A district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend 12 unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 13 amendment.’” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Schucker v. 14 Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203–04 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam)). The Court granted 15 Plaintiff leave to amend on the assumption that she could include additional facts in an 16 amended complaint. (Doc. 13 (“Here, the complaint’s primary defect is its lack of factual 17 content. Generally, that type of defect can be cured through amendment, so Plaintiff will 18 be given leave to amend.”).) However, despite receiving four extensions of time (a period 19 of four months), Plaintiff has failed to file an amended pleading that includes additional 20 facts. This, along with Plaintiff’s insistence that she cannot proceed without first obtaining 21 evidence, shows that Plaintiff has no additional facts to offer and that leave to amend would 22 be futile. As such, the Court will recommend that this case be dismissed without prejudice. 23 * * * 24 The Court recommends that the dismissal of Plaintiff Sandra Tripp’s complaint 25 (Docs. 1, 13) be affirmed and that this case be dismissed without prejudice. 26 This recommendation is not immediately appealable to the United States Court of 27 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff has 14 days from the date of service of this 28 recommendation to file specific written objections with the district court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections may result in the waiver of de novo review. 2|| United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 3 Dated this 24th day of July, 2025.

Uinted Staves Klee ae 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-