Jeffers v. Unknown Parties ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jay Jeffers, Jr., No. CV-21-01814-PHX-JJT 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Unknown Parties, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 At issue is pro se Plaintiff Jay Jeffers, Jr.’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma 16 Pauperis (Doc. 5). Having determined that Plaintiff is unable to pay the Court’s fees, the 17 Court grants the Application. However, as set forth below, upon screening Plaintiff’s 18 Complaint (Doc. 1, Compl.) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court finds that Plaintiff 19 fails to state a plausible claim on which this Court may grant relief. 20 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 21 A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 22 For cases in which a party is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis—that is, the 23 party lacks the means to pay court fees—Congress has provided that a district court “shall 24 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that the “allegation of poverty is untrue” 25 or that the “action or appeal” is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which 26 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 27 such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 28 proceedings. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). “It is also clear that section 1 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis 2 complaint that fails to state a claim.” Id. at 1127. 3 B. Sufficiency of a Claim 4 A complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 5 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint must contain “sufficient 6 factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 7 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 8 544, 570 (2007)). A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim can be based 9 on either (1) the lack of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts to support a 10 cognizable legal claim. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 11 The Court is to construe a pro se plaintiff’s complaint “liberally” and afford the plaintiff “the 12 benefit of any doubt.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation 13 omitted). However, even where a complaint has the factual elements of a cause of action 14 present but scattered throughout the complaint and not organized into a “short and plain 15 statement of the claim,” it may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a). Sparling v. 16 Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). 17 C. Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Pleading in Federal Court 18 Unlike state courts, federal courts only have jurisdiction over a limited number of 19 cases, and those cases typically involve either a controversy between citizens of different 20 states (“diversity jurisdiction”) or a question of federal law (“federal question 21 jurisdiction”). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The United States Supreme Court has stated 22 that a federal court must not disregard or evade the limits on its subject matter jurisdiction. 23 Owen Equip. & Erections Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). Thus, a federal court 24 is obligated to inquire into its subject matter jurisdiction in each case and to dismiss a case 25 when subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 26 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 27 28 1 II. ANALYSIS 2 As a threshold matter, the Court briefly addresses Plaintiff’s “Response” (Doc. 6) 3 to the Court’s opening of this matter and Notice of Availability of a United States 4 Magistrate Judge (Doc. 2). It is unclear what Plaintiff is attempting to object to in the 5 Response; the Notice simply informs litigants that a Magistrate Judge—who is part of the 6 same Court as the undersigned District Judge—is available for the resolution of issues in 7 this matter, which some litigants choose. It appears Plaintiff does not choose for issues to 8 be adjudicated by a Magistrate Judge in this matter, which is Plaintiff’s right. A Response 9 to the Notice was neither required nor requested. 10 In the Complaint, Plaintiff states that on September 21, 2020, he suffered serious 11 injuries in an automobile accident that required surgery, which was performed by 12 Defendant Dr. Tsinsue (or Tsinsun) Chen. (Compl. at 6.) Plaintiff alleges that, in April 13 2021, when the employees of Defendant Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 14 (AHCCCS), Arizona’s Medicaid agency, discovered Plaintiff is Black, “they singled 15 [Plaintiff] out, and repeatedly prejudicially refused [his] health care with Dr. Tsinsun 16 Chen[,] completely blocking [Plaintiff] from getting health care for [the injuries to his] 17 neck.” (Compl. at 6.) Dr. Chen then agreed to see Plaintiff and ordered imaging of his neck 18 at Simon Med—all of which AHCCCS also agreed to—but AHCCCS never picked 19 Plaintiff up to take him to the imaging appointment on June 16, 2021. (Compl. at 7.) 20 Plaintiff also alleges that Dr. Chen and AHCCCS have refused to release his medical 21 records to him. (Compl. at 7-8.) 22 Plaintiff claims AHCCCS violated his “right to take care of [his] own health [and] 23 well-being” and “violated [his] rights by cruelly refusing [his] health care with [Dr. Chen].” 24 (Compl. at 8.) Plaintiff also claims Dr. Chen “violated his rights” by “refusing to release 25 [his] requested medical records [or] the names of the AHCCCS people that were violating 26 [his] rights” and by “secretly conspiring with the defendants of AHCCCS.” (Compl. at 8.) 27 The Complaint fails to state a claim because it does not identify any legal basis for 28 Plaintiff’s claims. It is not the role of the Court to determine what Plaintiff’s claims are or 1 || what law they are based on; rather, Plaintiff’s Complaint must identify the legal basis for 2|| his claims, that is, the precise Arizona state law or federal law upon which Plaintiff brings || his claims to the Court. Without a basis for the claims, the Court cannot assess whether 4|| Plaintiff has adequately stated a legal claim. 5 Moreover, without a basis for the claims, the Court cannot assess whether it has 6 || subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. As the Court laid out above, federal courts have || only limited jurisdiction. Here, Plaintiff states the Court has “federal question” jurisdiction, || but Plaintiff does not inform the Court what federal law provides the authority for his 9|| claims. 10 If a defective complaint can be cured, a plaintiff is entitled to amend the complaint || before itis dismissed. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-30 (9th Cir. 2000). Because itis possible that Plaintiff could amend his Complaint to state a legal claim, the Court will 13} give Plaintiff the opportunity to file an Amended Complaint that cures the defects the Court 14]| has identified in this Order. Plaintiff also asks the Court to serve the Complaint on 15 || Defendants (Compl. at 10), but the Court will only do so if Plaintiff is able to adequately 16 || state a legal claim in the Amended Complaint. 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff Jay Jeffers, Jr.’s Application 18 || for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 5). 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the Complaint (Doc. 1) with leave to 20 || amend. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by January 3, 2022, Plaintiff may file an 22 || Amended Complaint. If Plaintiff fails to timely file an Amended Complaint, the Clerk of 23 || Court is directed to close this matter without further Order of the Court. 24 Dated this 2nd day of December, 2021. CN 26 hlee— Unifga State#District Judge 27 28 -4-