Nailey v. Tucson, City of 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
Delano Artise Nailey,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Tucson, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00685-TUC-AMM
ORDER
Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Delano Artise Nailey’s Complaint
(Doc. 1) and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). For the following
reasons, the Court will grant the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and dismiss
the Complaint.
I. IFP Application
A party who files an action in federal district court must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1914(a). However, indigent plaintiffs may apply for a fee waiver. 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Court must determine whether the litigant is unable to pay the filing fee before
granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See id. § 1915(a)(1).
Plaintiff Nailey’s IFP Application is sparse. (Doc. 2.) However, he indicates that
he has no sources of income other than unspecified gifts or inheritances. (Id. at 1–2.) The
Court will grant the IFP Application based on this limited information.
///
///
Case 4:25-cv-00685-AMM Document 5 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 4

- 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
II. Statutory Screening of Pro Se Complaints
A district court must screen and dismiss a complaint, or any portion of a
complaint, filed in forma pauperis that “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1)–(2). The district court applies the
same standard as a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, the 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). The pleading standard does not demand “‘detailed factual
allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-
me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
To meet this standard, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim to relief 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. Therefore, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of
a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
The Ninth Circuit has instructed district courts to “continue to construe pro se
filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Watison,
668 F.3d at 1112. A “complaint [filed by a pro se litigant] ‘must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 342 (quoting
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).
III. Complaint
On December 10, 2025, Plaintiff Nailey brought this action on behalf of Green
Clouded Pyramids, LLC against the City of Tucson, Tucson Police Department, and
several named officers alleging that they violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendments. (Doc. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff Nailey states that he is the “Owner/Operator” of
Case 4:25-cv-00685-AMM Document 5 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 4

- 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
Green Clouded Pyramids, LLC. (Id.)
As a threshold matter, the Court must dismiss this action because Plaintiff Nailey
may not represent Green Clouded Pyramids, LLC. Rowland v. Ca. Men’s Colony, Unit II
Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better
part of two centuries, for example, that a corporation may appear in the federal courts
only through licensed counsel.”). Therefore, Plaintiff Nailey’s pro se Complaint on behalf
of Green Clouded Pyramids, LLC must be dismissed.
IV. Leave to Amend
A pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before
dismissal of the action if the Court determines that Plaintiff might cure the complaint by
alleging other facts. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en
banc). “Leave to amend need not be given if a complaint, as amended, is subject to
dismissal.” Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989).
If Plaintiff Nailey seeks to pursue claims on behalf of Green Clouded Pyramids,
LLC, he may do so through retained legal counsel. In this case, the Court will allow
Plaintiff Nailey to file a pro se Amended Complaint only to the extent that he seeks to
assert that his constitutional rights were violated. Plaintiff Nailey may not file an
Amended Complaint to assert any claims on behalf of Green Clouded Pyramids, LLC
absent representation by legal counsel.
If he chooses to amend, Plaintiff Nailey must write short, plain statements telling
the Court for each claim: (1) law right he believes was violated; (2) the name of the
Defendant who violated the law; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to do that
violated that particular law; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected
to the violation; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of that Defendant's
conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371–72, 377 (1976). If Plaintiff Nailey fails
to affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific injury he
suffered, the allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for failure to state a
claim. As indicated above, mere conclusory allegations that a Defendant has violated the
Case 4:25-cv-00685-AMM Document 5 Filed 12/22/25 Page 3 of 4

- 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
law are not acceptable and will be dismissed.
Plaintiff Nailey must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the
“Amended Complaint.” The Amended Complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its
entirety and may not incorporate any part of the original Complaint by reference. Ferdik
v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (an amended complaint supersedes any
previous complaint, meaning that the Court will treat the original Complaint as non-
existent).
The Court is aware that Plaintiff Nailey is proceeding pro se. He shall familiarize
himself with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules for the District of
Arizona, both of which can be found on the Court’s web site at www.azd.uscourts.gov.
He is also advised that a Handbook for Self-Represented Litigants is available on the
Court's website at: https://publicapps.azd.uscourts.gov/prose-survey/.
V. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff Nailey’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED.
(Doc. 2.)
(2) The Complaint is DISMISSED. (Doc. 1.)
(3) Plaintiff Nailey may file an Amended Complaint consistent with the terms of
this Order no later than January 30, 2026. If Plaintiff Nailey does not file an
Amended Complaint by January 30, 2026, the Clerk of Court shall close this
case without further notice.
Dated this 22nd day of December, 2025.
Case 4:25-cv-00685-AMM Document 5 Filed 12/22/25 Page 4 of 4