Williams v. Unknown Party ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Dimitri Trevon Williams, No. CV-22-01779-PHX-SMB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 California Department of Mental Health, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff Dimitri Williams’ Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 16 11) and two Motions for Court Assistance. (See Docs. 9; 10.) The Court denies each for 17 the reasons stated below. 18 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 19 The Court must review the complaint to determine whether the action (i) is frivolous or malicious; 20 (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or 21 (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires 23 that a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counter- 24 claim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain: (1) a short and plain statement of 25 the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has 26 jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short 27 and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a 28 demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of 1 several different types may be demanded. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3). 2 While Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than 3 an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 4 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 5 supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. A complaint “must 6 contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is 7 plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 8 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 9 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 10 alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A complaint that provides “labels and 11 conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” 12 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor will a complaint suffice if it presents nothing more than 13 “naked assertion[s]” without “further factual enhancement.” Id. at 557. 14 II. STATUTORY SCREENING 15 In the Second Amended Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to allege 16 any basis for jurisdiction, whether its pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a), 17 or some other basis. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Additionally, Plaintiff’s allegations fail 18 to state a claim for relief against Defendants. Plaintiff does not provide facts to support 19 his causes of action. Plaintiff must state factual allegations and explain how those 20 allegations establish a violation of a relevant legal authority. In short, Plaintiff must 21 show he is entitled to relief. He has not done so here. Plaintiff simply makes conclusory 22 statements. 23 Plaintiff’s first claim for relief reads: “Riverside CA violated my Fifth 24 Amendment right & a right to a fair trial.” (Doc. 11 at 8.) Factually, Plaintiff alleges that 25 “[n]umerous of occasions like at this moment I am not accessible to a lawyer who can 26 translate me being raped, robbed, misled, wrongfully incriminated, mistrial, told if I fight 27 my case I will get punished, hate crimes, terrorism, robbed, lied to, property stolen, 28 framed & etc.” (Id.) Plaintiff makes more allegations, but it is unclear if he is alleging 1 things that happened in Riverside, CA or here in Arizona. It’s also unclear if he is 2 alleging things related to a criminal case against him or related to treatment while in 3 custody. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for a violation of the Fifth Amendment. 4 Count 2 of the Second Amended Complaint reads: “Los Angeles, CA violated my 5 Fifth Amendment right & my right to a fair trial.” (Id. at 9.) Factually, Plaintiff alleges 6 many of the same allegations from Count I. He adds that “DMH & public assistance kept 7 housing me places where people were getting killed police wouldn’t take my police 8 reports & hospitals would not admit me after being harmed & poisoned by good seed, 9 Covenent house, & fast food.” (Id.) Again, there is no factual support for a Fifth 10 Amendment violation. 11 Plaintiff’s third claim reads: “Phoenix Arizona violated my Fifth Amendment right 12 & my right to a fair trial.” (Id. at 10.) Factually, the first paragraph is nearly identical to 13 the first two counts. He adds, “[p]olice lied & asked for help to crack down drug dealers 14 after I reported suspicious activity & the drugs I had I was turning in as evidence when I 15 was next to the police station I was going to turn it in as evidence but the booked me….” 16 (Id.) Again, it is unclear if he is trying to challenge a criminal conviction, which must be 17 done by direct appeal, or alleging a constitutional violation by the police. He does not, 18 however, tell us which agency and/or officers are involved. Plaintiff has failed to state a 19 claim for relief. 20 III. LEAVE TO AMEND 21 “Leave to amend need not be given if a complaint, as amended, is subject to 22 dismissal.” Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). 23 The Court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where Plaintiff has 24 previously been permitted to amend his complaint. Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. 25 United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996). Repeated failure to cure deficiencies is 26 one of the factors to be considered in deciding whether justice requires granting leave to 27 amend. Moore, 885 F.2d at 538. 28 Plaintiff has made multiple efforts at crafting a viable complaint and appears 1 || unable to do so despite specific instructions from the Court. The Court finds that further 2|| opportunities to amend would be futile. Therefore, the Court, in its discretion, will 3 || dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend. 4) IV. MOTIONS FOR COURT ASSISTANCE 5 The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff again requests the appointment of an || attorney in each pleading and motion. But because this is a civil case, Plaintiff has no || constitutional right to an appointed attorney. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, || 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding plaintiffs in civil actions are generally not entitled to 9|| appointment of counsel). Plaintiff's Motions also request additional time, but because the 10 || Court dismisses Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, that request is denied. 12 Accordingly, 13 IT IS ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint with 14]| prejudice. (Doc. 11.) 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's Motions for Court Assistance. (Docs. 9; 10.) 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED instructing the Clerk of Court to terminate this || case. 19 Dated this 17th day of November, 2022. 20 21 Ss > SO fonorable Susan M. Brnovich = 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 -_4-