Williams v. Jimenez et al

Page 1 of 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
THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM
LUCAS WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SERGIO JIMENEZ, KEVIN C.
McCLANAHAN, CARMEN PACHECO,
DAWN HILL-KEARSE, and
WAVNY TOUSSANT,
Defendants.
CIVIL CASE NO. 26-00001
ORDER
This matter is before the court on an Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees. See
ECF No. 2. For the reasons stated herein, the court GRANTS the IFP Application and
DISMISSES the Complaint with leave to amend.
I. 	IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
Plaintiff in this case is Mr. Lucas Williams, appearing pro se. Plaintiff requests to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”), meaning without paying the required filing fee.
Section 1915(a)(1) of Title 28, United Sates Code, permits a court to authorize a person to
commence a civil action without prepaying the required filing fee if said person submits an
affidavit stating that he or she is unable to pay such fees.
Case 1:26-cv-00001 Document 3 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 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
The IFP Application states that Plaintiff has a monthly income of $1,000. Mot. at 1, ECF
No. 2. He indicates that his expenses for food and utilities amount to $1,000, and he only has $50
in his bank account. Id. at 2. Therefore, based on the information Plaintiff provided, the court
GRANTS his IFP Application, and the court waives the required filing fees.
II. 	SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND STANDARD
When screening a complaint, the court is mindful that allegations of a pro se complaint
are held to less-stringent standards than the pleadings drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). However, pro se litigants “should not be treated more favorably than
parties with attorneys of record[.]” Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986). “[A]
pro se litigant is not excused from knowing the most basic pleading requirements.” Am. Ass’n of
Neuropathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 2000).
Section 1915(e)(2)(B) of Title 28, United States Code, provides that the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action is either frivolous or
malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief.
In reviewing whether a complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, 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). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)), and courts “are not required to indulge
unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th
Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted
as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Case 1:26-cv-00001 Document 3 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 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
III. DISCUSSION
In his one-page Complaint, Plaintiff states that “Defendants conspired with individuals in
LT-325749-22/KI,” in which “[a]ll defendants conspired together in violation of due process[.]”
Compl. at 1, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff asserts that this court “has jurisdiction under federal law” and
seeks compensatory and punitive damages “estimated over $500,000.” Id. Without anything
more, the court is unable to determine whether Plaintiff’s claim is legally viable.
First, although Plaintiff alleges that this court “has jurisdiction under federal law”, the
complaint is so deficient that it is unclear to the court as to what federal law is being violated and
whether this case truly belongs in this court. Plaintiff also failed to provide any facts that would
suggest venue in this court is proper. Plaintiff does not allege where the conspiracy occurred and
where the defendants and himself, the plaintiff, reside. The court notes that similar, if not
identical, Complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern District of
Florida, the District of Arizona, the District of Colorado, the Middle District of Georgia Valdosta
Division, and the Western District of Wisconsin.
Second, a complaint “must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair
notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d
1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). In order to avoid dismissal with prejudice for failing to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), Plaintiff must provide
facts or actions taken by each defendant on which he bases his conspiracy claims or facts
supporting his claim for violation of due process.
IV. LEAVE TO AMEND
Given that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and it is not clear Plaintiff could not cure the
Complaint’s deficiencies by amendment, the court will allow Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
Case 1:26-cv-00001 Document 3 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 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
15(a)(2) (leave to amend should be “freely” given “when justice so requires”). The amended
complaint must set forth sufficient factual allegations that state an identified legal claim as to
each Defendant and the legal basis for each such claim, taking into account the contents of this
Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Additionally, the amended complaint must set forth sufficient
information as to the identity and residence of each Defendant as well as the residence of
Plaintiff, and where the alleged conspiracy occurred. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended
complaint in compliance with this Order, this action may be dismissed with prejudice and
without further notice.
V. CONCLUSION
It is HEREBY ODERED that:
a. 	Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
b. 	Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED, with leave to amend.
c. 	Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file an
amended complaint in compliance with this order; and
d. 	If Plaintiff fails to file said amended complaint, this action will be dismissed, with
prejudice, for failure to state a claim.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood
Chief Judge
Dated:Jan 20, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00001 Document 3 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 4