Williams v. Jimenez 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
Lucas Williams,
Plaintiff,
v.
Sergio Jimenez, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-00008-TUC-SHR
ORDER
On January 6, 2026, Plaintiff Lucas Williams filed a pro se Complaint against
Defendants Sergio Jimenez, Kevin C. McClanahan, Carmen Pacheco, Dawn Hill-Kearse,
and Wavny Toussaint. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an Application for Leave to Proceed
in Forma Pauperis (IFP). (Doc. 2.) For the following reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiff
IFP status and dismiss his Complaint with leave to amend.
I. IFP APPLICATION
A party who files an action in federal district court must generally pay a filing fee.
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Indigent plaintiffs, however, may apply for a fee waiver. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. A court must determine whether the litigant is unable to pay the filing fee before
granting leave to proceed IFP. See § 1915(a)(1). The Court may grant IFP status if the
supporting affidavit shows the party cannot, because of his poverty, pay or give security
for fees and “still be able to provide himself and [his] dependents with the necessities of
life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal
Case 4:26-cv-00008-SHR Document 5 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 5

- 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
quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff has submitted an IFP application stating under penalty of perjury he is
financially unable to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 2.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s statement of
income, assets, and expenses reflects his inability to pay. Therefore, the Court will grant
Plaintiff’s application for IFP status.
II. STATUTORY SCREENING
The Court has a statutory obligation to screen a pro se IFP complaint before it may
be served. § 1915(e)(2). The Court must dismiss such a complaint or a portion thereof if
a plaintiff raises legally frivolous or malicious claims, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. Id.; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)
(noting § 1915(e) “applies to all in forma pauperis complaints,” not just those filed by
prisoners).
Rule 8 requires every complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (3). While Rule 8 does not require 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.
“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d
1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is
appropriate when a complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or fails to allege facts
sufficient to support its theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th
Cir. 1990). A complaint setting forth a cognizable legal theory will survive a motion to
dismiss if it contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Case 4:26-cv-00008-SHR Document 5 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 5

- 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
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. The Court must accept all well-pleaded
factual allegations as true and interpret the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428, 435 (9th Cir. 2000). This rule does not apply to
legal conclusions. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678.
III. DISCUSSION
In his one-page Complaint, Plaintiff broadly alleges Defendants “conspired together
in violation of due process.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) As to the relief requested, Plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages “estimated over $500,000.” (Id.) Plaintiff fails to
clearly identify the factual and legal bases for his claim, and without such information, the
Court is unable to determine whether Plaintiff’s claim is legally viable. Moreover,
although Plaintiff states this Court has “jurisdiction under federal law,” this bare assertion
is insufficient to assure the Court it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1); Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (holding a federal
court has an independent duty to ensure subject matter jurisdiction exists in cases before
it); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (stating district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all
civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a) (stating district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions where the parties are
diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000). Plaintiff’s Complaint also fails
to allege facts sufficient to establish this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants.
See LNS Enters. LLC v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 22 F.4th 852, 858–59 (9th Cir. 2022)
(discussing requirements for general and specific personal jurisdiction). Plaintiff’s
Complaint simply fails to allege “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
Case 4:26-cv-00008-SHR Document 5 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 5

- 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. LEAVE TO AMEND
As the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts
must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342
(9th Cir. 2010). A complaint filed by a pro se litigant “must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Id. (citation omitted). If the Court
determines a pleading could be cured by alleging additional facts, a pro se litigant is entitled
to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez, 203 F.3d
at 1127–29; Jackson v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 755, 767 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating the court will
give a plaintiff the opportunity cure the complaint’s deficiencies by amendment unless it
is “absolutely clear” the plaintiff could not do so).
Because it is not absolutely clear Plaintiff could not cure the Complaint’s
deficiencies by amendment, the Court will give him the opportunity to do so. See Jackson,
749 F.3d at 767; see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130 (holding a pro se litigant must be given
leave to amend his complaint “if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the
defect” in the complaint (quoting Balistreri, 901 F.2d at 701)). The Court will dismiss the
Complaint and grant Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint within thirty (30) days
from the date of entry of this Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (leave to amend should
be “freely” given “when justice so requires”).
A first amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896
F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat the original
complaint as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. As such, the first amended complaint
must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety and may not incorporate any part of the original
complaint by reference. Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that
it is the “First Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint should explain
Plaintiff’s case in a short and plain manner, with each cause of action accompanied by facts
to satisfy the elements of the claims brought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. In the event Plaintiff
fails to timely file an amended complaint curing all deficiencies described above, Plaintiff
Case 4:26-cv-00008-SHR Document 5 Filed 01/08/26 Page 4 of 5

- 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
is advised this case may be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) or Rule 41(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.
1996) (affirming dismissal with prejudice of amended complaint that did not comply with
Rule 8).
V. WARNINGS
A. Address Changes
Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule
83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other
relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this
action.
B. Possible Dismissal
If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these
warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d
at 1260–61 (noting a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any
order of the Court).
VI. CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's IFP Application (Doc. 2) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff may file a First
Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date this Order is filed. If Plaintiff fails
to file a First Amended Complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of Court must, without further
order of the Court, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice and deny
any pending unrelated motions as moot.
Dated this 8th day of January, 2026.
Case 4:26-cv-00008-SHR Document 5 Filed 01/08/26 Page 5 of 5