Hardwick v. Arion Care Solutions 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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Kimbaly Hardwick,
Plaintiff,
v.
Arion Care Solutions, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-00992-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiff Kimbaly Hardwick filed a complaint and an application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2.) Hardwick is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis
but granting that application allows the court to determine whether the complaint states any
claims on which she might be able to obtain relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). It does not.
A complaint 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). Although 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. And while the court must construe a pro se complaint
liberally, that “does not mean that the court will supply essential elements of a claim that
are absent from the complaint.” Boquist v. Courtney, 32 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2022).
Hardwick’s complaint does not contain any meaningful factual allegations
explaining why she is suing the four individuals named as defendants. (The complaint
Case 2:26-cv-00992-KML Document 6 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 2

- 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
identifies “Arion Care Solutions” as the defendant in its caption but only lists four
individuals as the defendants later in the complaint.) In specifying the jurisdictional basis
for her suit, Hardwick checked boxes indicating her claims are brought under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and a collection of state and federal laws that she
identifies as providing “whistleblower protection” and “non retaliation.” (Doc. 1 at 3.)
Hardwick then checked boxes indicating her claims are based on termination of her
employment and retaliation. The allegedly discriminatory acts occurred on October 1,
2024. (Doc. 1 at 4.) There are no additional allegations explaining the basis for this suit.
Hardwick attached numerous documents to her complaint. Those documents appear
to be a collection of emails, texts, police reports, and court records involving Hardwick’s
contacts with Arion Care Solutions and its employees. Even if it were proper to consider
the documents at this stage, they do not provide any additional guidance on why Hardwick
filed this suit.
Hardwick is given leave to file an amended complaint. If she does so, Hardwick
must explain in simple terms her relationship with each defendant, what each defendant
did, and why those actions were contrary to law.
IT IS ORDERED the Application (Doc. 2) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than March 6, 2026, plaintiff shall file an
amended complaint. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal if no
amended complaint is filed by that date.
Dated this 17th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-00992-KML Document 6 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 2