Abdullah #271958 v. United States of America et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
KM
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Haider Abdullah,
Plaintiff,
v.
United States of America, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-01932-PHX-JAT (ASB)
ORDER
Self-represented Plaintiff Haider Abdullah, who is confined in the Red Rock
Correctional Center, filed a “Notice of Claim.” In a September 4, 2025 Order, the Court
dismissed the “Notice of Claim” and gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an Amended Complaint
and either pay the filing and administrative fees or file an Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis. On September 11 and October 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed Applications to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis (Docs. 6, 10). On September 22, 2025, he filed an Amended
Complaint (Doc. 8). The Court will grant the September 11 Application to Proceed, deny
as moot the October 14 Application to Proceed, and dismiss the Amended Complaint and
this action.
I. Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee
The Court will grant Plaintiff’s September 11 Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $10.64. The
remainder of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s
Case 2:25-cv-01932-JAT--ASB Document 13 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 6

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds
$10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the
appropriate government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory
formula. The Court will deny as moot the October 14 Application to Proceed.
II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff
has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2).
A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does
not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for
relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual
allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there
are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681.
But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts
must “continue to construe [self-represented litigant’s] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler,
Case 2:25-cv-01932-JAT--ASB Document 13 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 6

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a self-represented prisoner]
‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id.
(quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)).
If the Court determines a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a
self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal
of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend
because the defects cannot be corrected.
III. Amended Complaint
In his three-count Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the United States of America,
the Arizona State Bar Association, Hastings & Hastings Law Firm, and private attorney
Wayne Howell. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
In each of his three claims for relief, Plaintiff alleges he signed a contract with
Defendant Hastings & Hastings for representation relating to a 2008 car accident in which
he was involved. Plaintiff was represented by Defendant Howell, an attorney working for
Hastings & Hastings. In 2009, the parties reached a settlement for $50,000. The contract
stipulated Defendant Howell would receive 25% of the settlement and Plaintiff would
receive $37,500. Plaintiff was told he could receive the check by mail or pick it up;
Plaintiff chose to pick up the check. However, Plaintiff was unable to do so because he
was arrested and has been incarcerated for the last 16 years. Plaintiff claims that “to this
day, Hastings & Hastings has refused to pay [him] the $37,500 from the claim settlement
and honor the agreement, which [Plaintiff] signed accepting the settlement offer.” Plaintiff
contends he was “in segregation, with no contact information or phone calls or any mail
like [he] was in a cave with no access over many years.” Plaintiff claims he filed a
complaint about Defendant Howell with Defendants Hastings & Hastings, but never
received a response. Plaintiff filed a bar complaint against Hastings & Hastings “and again
never got a response.” Plaintiff “feel[s] this is a violation of [his] constitutional rights on
the 4th and the 14th amendment[s].”
Case 2:25-cv-01932-JAT--ASB Document 13 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 6

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IV. Jurisdiction
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and limitations on the court’s jurisdiction
must neither be disregarded nor evaded. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S.
365, 374 (1978). The Court is obligated to determine sua sponte whether it has subject
matter jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004).
See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-
matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). The party asserting jurisdiction
bears the burden of proving its existence. See Cook v. AVI Casino Enters., Inc., 548 F.3d
718, 722 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff has failed to establish a jurisdiction basis for his claim.
In general, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions
“arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” and over civil actions
where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action is between “citizens of
different States.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1).
Although Plaintiff makes the conclusory allegation that Defendants’ conduct
violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, Plaintiff alleges no facts in support
of this claim. Plaintiff has alleged he entered a contract with a private law firm and the law
firm or his private attorney failed to honor the terms of the contract. This is purely private
conduct not subject to the Constitution, which limits governmental action.1 See e.g.,
Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. 802, 808 (2019) (private entity not
ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment). Similarly, Plaintiff offers no facts
supporting a diversity of citizenship claim. The Court will dismiss the Complaint and this
action for lack of jurisdiction.
. . . .
1 Plaintiff has named the United States of America as a Defendant but makes no
claims against it. Moreover, sovereign immunity prevents actions against the United
States, its agencies, or its employees in their official capacities. Arnsberg v. United States,
757 F.2d 971, 980 (9th Cir. 1985); Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 1401-02 (9th Cir.
1983). Similarly, “as an arm of a state’s supreme court connected to disciplinary
proceedings, a state’s bar association ‘is an integral part of the judicial process’ and is
therefore entitled to the same immunity which is afforded to prosecuting attorneys in that
state.” Strojnick v. State Bar of Ariz., 446 F. Supp. 3d 566, 576 (D. Ariz. Mar. 17, 2020),
quoting Clark v. Wash., 366 F.2d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 1966).
Case 2:25-cv-01932-JAT--ASB Document 13 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 6

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
V. Dismissal Without Leave to Amend
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend should be freely
granted “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “The court considers five factors
in assessing the propriety of leave to amend—bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the
opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended
the complaint.” United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011)
(citing Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004)). Although a pro se
plaintiff is generally entitled to notice of the deficiencies of his claims and an opportunity
to amend, see Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit in
Corinthian Colleges explained that leave to amend is not warranted unless the deficiencies
“can be cured with additional allegations that are ‘consistent with the challenged pleading’
and that do not contradict the allegations in the original complaint,” 655 F.3d at 955
(quoting Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296–97 (9th Cir. 1990)). See also
Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130 (leave to amend should be granted unless a pleading “could not
possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts”).
Here, the deficiencies in the Complaint “could not possibly be cured by the
allegation of other facts” that are consistent with and do not contradict the Complaint.
Because Plaintiff has only raised claims over which this Court lacks jurisdiction, the Court
finds leave to amend would be futile. Therefore, the Court, in its discretion, will dismiss
the Complaint without leave to amend.
Plaintiff should note that nothing in this federal court order prevents Plaintiff from
pursuing his claims in state court.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff’s September 11, 2025 Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Doc. 6) is granted.
(2) Plaintiff’s October 14, 2025 Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Doc. 10) is denied as moot.
Case 2:25-cv-01932-JAT--ASB Document 13 Filed 02/19/26 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(3) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government
agency, Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee
of $10.64.
(4) The Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and
the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.
(5) The docket shall reflect that the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), has considered whether an appeal
of this decision would be taken in good faith and finds Plaintiff may appeal in forma
pauperis.
Dated this 19th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-01932-JAT--ASB Document 13 Filed 02/19/26 Page 6 of 6