Hill v. Tiempo Development & Management 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
Kecia Hill,
Plaintiff,
v.
Tiempo Development & Management, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-04202-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiff Kecia Hill believes her adult son, Jaquai Robert Williams, died because of
mold in his apartment. Hill alleges the apartment complex, the office of the medical
examiner and its employees, two funeral homes and their employees, and a private
pathologist entered into a conspiracy to prevent Williams’s true cause of death from being
known. Hill has not stated any plausible federal claims for relief and those claims are
dismissed with leave to amend. At this time, the federal claims appear to be the sole basis
by which this case might be in federal court. Therefore, the court will await the amended
complaint and its federal claims to determine whether the court should exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Hill’s state-law claims.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Hill appears to have used generative artificial intelligence to generate a flood of
confusing and repetitive documents. On June 15, 2026, Hill filed five documents: 1) a
complaint; 2) a request for electronic noticing; 3) an application to proceed in forma
pauperis; 4) an “Emergency Motion for Extension of Time to File First Amended
Complaint and Stay Procedural Deadlines Pending Retention of New Counsel”; and 5)
Case 2:26-cv-04202-KML Document 14 Filed 06/29/26 Page 1 of 9

- 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
another “Emergency Motion for Extension of Time” that does not identify what deadline
she seeks to extend. (Docs. 1-5.) Some of those filings contained the full name of a minor
and the Clerk of Court placed most of these filings under seal. Before the court could take
any action on Hill’s initial filings, she filed another set of documents.
On June 17, 2026, Hill filed six more documents. It is difficult to determine the basis
for each of the documents, but they are titled: 1) “Motion to Seal Limited Identifying
Information Contained in the Complaint”; 2) “Motion to Seal Limited Identifying
Information Contained in Plaintiff’s Bare-Bones Motion”; 3) “Motion to Seal Limited
Identifying Information Contained in Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion”; 4) a second, and
slightly different, “Motion to Seal Limited Identifying Information Contained in Plaintiff’s
Bare-Bones Motion”; 5) “Motion to Redact Limited Third-Party Decedent Identifying
Information”; and 6) “Amended Redacted Complaint.” (Docs. 8-13.)
Having read all of Hill’s filings, it appears some of the June 15 filings contained a
minor’s full name and information regarding the remains of another decedent being
handled by the Office of the Medical Examiner. The June 17 filings are Hill’s attempts to
seal most of her June 15 filings and amend her complaint to remove the minor’s name and
information about the other decedent. The amended complaint also corrects “transcription
issues” that caused a portion of the original complaint to be illegible. (Doc. 13.) The
amended complaint filed on June 17 is treated as Hill’s amendment as of right such that it
is operative complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). Because Hill has established she is
entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, the court must determine whether the amended
complaint states any claim for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It does not.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
As of June 2025, Williams was living in an apartment at the Grand Cortez
Apartments. (Doc. 13 at 2.) Tiempo Development & Management and its “parent
company” CPIC appear to own and operate that apartment complex. (Doc. 13 at 1-2.) On
some unidentified date before June 2, 2025, Hill “lodged a formal enforcement complaint
with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office” regarding the conditions of Williams’s
Case 2:26-cv-04202-KML Document 14 Filed 06/29/26 Page 2 of 9

- 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
apartment. (Doc. 13 at 2.) (It is not clear if Hill and Williams lived in the same apartment
or, if they did not, why Hill submitted a complaint regarding Williams’s apartment.) After
that complaint, Tiempo and CPIC performed “an internal mold test” that “confirmed
hazardous toxic spore infestations.” (Doc. 13 at 2.) Tiempo and CPIC then “downplayed
the dangerous spore counts to [Williams], and failed to remediate the underlying structure.”
(Doc. 13 at 5.) On June 2, 2025, Williams died. (Doc. 13 at 4.)
After Williams’s death, “a cross agency, post mortem conspiracy was activated by
public and private actors.” (Doc. 13 at 5.) Employees of the Office of Medical Examiner
(“OME”) took steps “to conceal the environmental poisoning, insulate the landlord from
immense tort liability, and protect the OME from civil rights exposure.” (Doc. 13 at 5.)
The conspiracy involved a refusal “to collect basic forensic samples, including urine,” as
well as storing Williams’s “blood inside improper storage tubes that were completely
unsuited and inappropriate for mold antibody testing.” (Doc. 13 at 5-6.) OME employees
also “executed a retaliatory cancellation of a scheduled state autopsy the exact moment the
family exercised their constitutional right to decline commercial organ harvesting.” (Doc.
13 at 5.) OME employees “weaponized [Williams’s] physical weight and BMI of 60 as a
visual shortcut,” claiming “they could determine the cause of death strictly by an ‘external
look.’” (Doc. 13 at 5.)
Because the OME “refused to alter their superficial exam process,” Williams’s
“remains were transferred” to a funeral home “under a protective hold.” (Doc. 13 at 6.)
There is no explanation what this “protective hold” means. Upon arriving at Rose Manor
Funeral Home, employees there “inflicted an unauthorized post-mortem puncture wound
to the side of the neck.” (Doc. 13 at 6.) This wound was made in connection with the funeral
home’s desire (as participants in the conspiracy) to “erase the scientific trace of the mold
load before outside specialists could intervene.” (Doc. 13 at 7.) A second funeral home,
Legacy Funeral Home, was also involved somehow and also engaged in acts to cover up
the mold. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Hill retained a private pathologist who initially confirmed “fungal
hyphae inside [Williams’s] liver and spleen.” (Doc. 13 at 7.) But the private pathologist
Case 2:26-cv-04202-KML Document 14 Filed 06/29/26 Page 3 of 9

- 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
later “execut[ed] a massive medical fabrication” by concluding Williams died of a blood
clot from a pulmonary embolism, not mold exposure. (Doc. 13 at 7.)
Based on these events, Hill asserts three federal claims and ten state claims. The
first federal claim is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for race discrimination against Maricopa
County, OME, and OME employees. Hill alleges these defendants “operated an
unconstitutional custom and practice of utilizing weaponized racial profiling to
purposefully deny standard forensic protection, scene investigations, and equal protection
to minority citizens.” (Doc. 13 at 8.) The second claim, brought against the same
defendants as the first, is also a § 1983 claim. Hill describes this claim as “disability &
BMI discrimination” based on defendants “weaponiz[ing] an unscientific visual shortcut
based entirely on a physical BMI of 60 to cancel a scheduled state autopsy” and failing to
conduct a competent investigation into Williams’s death. (Doc. 13 at 8.) The third federal
claim is identified as brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 against the same group of defendants
as the first two claims, but also against Tiempo, CPIC, the private pathologist, two funeral
homes, and multiple funeral home employees.
ANALYSIS
I. Amended Complaint Does Not State a Claim for Relief
When a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the complaint may proceed only
if it “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (simplified). This is not
a “probability requirement,” but a requirement that the factual allegations show “more than
a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. A claim is facially 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.
Hill’s complaint is flawed in that it lists many defendants, but it does not identify
which defendant took what actions, nor does it identify the actions underlying each claim
Case 2:26-cv-04202-KML Document 14 Filed 06/29/26 Page 4 of 9

- 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
for relief. “It is not the job of the district courts to make sense of the pleading, to supply
facts to support the claim, or to imagine the claims that might fit the facts.” Gibson v. City
of Portland, 165 F.4th 1265, 1289 (9th Cir. 2026). A court cannot meaningfully assess a
complaint like Hill’s where it does not state “who did what and, instead,” consists of “only
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s].” Id. (simplified). At least
for purposes of the federal claims, the complaint must be dismissed based on its vague and
confusing nature. But there are other flaws in each federal claim that Hill should consider
if she chooses to amend.
Hill’s first claim is a § 1983 claim based on alleged race discrimination by Maricopa
County, OME, and OME employees. This claim requires allegations the defendants were
state actors and they “acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff
based upon membership in a protected class.” Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030
(9th Cir. 2013). To sue Maricopa County, Hill would also need to allege it has a policy or
practice that resulted in constitutional violations. See Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 6 F.4th
961, 973 (9th Cir. 2021).
To the extent the court can understand Hill’s first claim, she seems to believe various
acts were taken based on race. But the amended complaint does not provide facts showing
any defendant’s actions were taken based on race. Instead, Hill alleges certain defendants
acted out of “racial animus and bias,” without further elaboration. (Doc. 13 at 3.) These are
“mere conclusory statements” the court need not accept as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S.C. at 678.
Hill has not stated a claim for relief based on race discrimination.
Hill’s second § 1983 claim is based on allegedly unlawful discrimination based on
disability and BMI. Hill bases this claim on allegations OME and its employees canceled
a “state autopsy” and “weaponized [Williams’s] physical weight and a BMI of 60 . . . that
they could determine the cause of death strictly by an ‘external look.’” (Doc. 13 at 5.) Any
actions taken based on disability “are subject only to rational basis review.”1 Payan v. Los
1 Even assuming Hill were bringing a “class of one” claim instead of one based on
disability, the actions would still be subject to rational basis review. Gerhart v. Lake Cnty.,
Mont., 637 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2011).
Case 2:26-cv-04202-KML Document 14 Filed 06/29/26 Page 5 of 9

- 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
Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., 11 F.4th 729, 737 (9th Cir. 2021). This is a very low threshold
that requires there be a “reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational
basis for” the actions. F.C.C. v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993). A
decision to not provide a “state autopsy” could be explained by many rational bases, such
as a decision regarding the allocation of limited resources. See Hotop v. City of San Jose,
982 F.3d 710, 717 (9th Cir. 2020) (ordinance “easily” survived rational basis review
because limited scope of ordinance prevented expenditure of “significant resources”). Hill
has not stated a plausible § 1983 claim based on disability discrimination.
The third federal claim is brought under § 1985, but it “does not even identify the
subsection or subsections of § 1985 under which [Hill is] suing.” Gibson, 165 F.4th at 129.
Hill may be attempting to allege a claim under § 1985(2) for obstructing justice, but that
subsection of § 1985 deals with obstructing access to state or federal court. Portman v.
Cnty. of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898, 908 (9th Cir. 1993). Hill presents no coherent
allegations establishing such interference. Hill also might be attempting to assert a claim
under § 1985(3). That subsection requires allegations that “some racial, or perhaps
otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus [lay] behind the conspirators’
action, . . . and . . . the conspiracy aimed at interfering with rights that are protected against
private, as well as official, encroachment.” Butler v. Elle, 281 F.3d 1014, 1028 (9th Cir.
2002) (simplified). Hill has not alleged any class-based animus, so this claim is not
plausible.
None of Hill’s federal claims are plausible and those claims are dismissed. Hill has
many state-law claims, but “[a] court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over related state-law claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction.” Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001). The court will assess the
validity of the state-law claims only once it is clear Hill has stated federal claim such that
this case might remain in federal court.
II. Leave to Amend
Hill is granted leave to file an amended complaint but if she chooses to do so she
Case 2:26-cv-04202-KML Document 14 Filed 06/29/26 Page 6 of 9

- 7 -
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
must provide a much clearer explanation of the actions taken by each defendant and why
she believes those actions render that defendant liable. In drafting an amended complaint,
Hill must keep in mind that her current theory of a large conspiracy does not appear
plausible. The current complaint alleges the entities that own and operate the apartment
complex, Maricopa County, the OME and eight of its employees, two funeral homes and
three of their employees, and a private pathologist entered into a conspiracy regarding the
investigation of Williams’s death. The goal of the conspiracy was to prevent “immense tort
liability” for the apartment complex and liability against OME for “civil rights” violations.
(Doc. 13 at 5.) There are no allegations of when or how the defendants entered into this
conspiracy and instead of a vast conspiracy, there is an “obvious alternative explanation”:
Williams’s death was not caused by mold exposure. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 567 (2007). In other words, at present it appears far more likely that six entities and
twelve individuals did not conspire to prevent Hill from proving Williams’s death was
caused by mold.
III. Procedural Matters
The amended complaint was a permissible amendment and there is no need for the
original complaint containing the minor’s full name to be publicly available on the docket.
Therefore, the motion to seal the original complaint (Doc. 8) is granted. Hill’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) also contains the minor’s name and it is sealed. The
amended complaint (Doc. 13) does not contain confidential information, and it is not
sealed.
Based on the date of Williams’s death, Hill believes the statute of limitations is
about to expire or will expire in the very near future. Apparently in an attempt to avoid
expiration of the statute of limitations, Hill filed her complaint but also filed an “emergency
motion” for permission to file an amended complaint after she obtains counsel. (Doc. 4.)
Hill also filed another “emergency motion” for extension of time, but that document
consists of a single page containing the case caption. (Doc. 5.) Those motions do not
contain any confidential information, and the motions to seal those filings are denied.
Case 2:26-cv-04202-KML Document 14 Filed 06/29/26 Page 7 of 9

- 8 -
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
(Docs. 9-11) On their merits, the motion to file an amended complaint and for an extension
of time are denied. Hill must state a viable claim for relief before the court will consider
whether extensions of any deadlines are appropriate. Finally, Hill’s “motion to redact
limited third-party identifying information” appears to relate to the original complaint.
(Doc. 12.) That complaint is sealed, and Doc. 12 is denied as unnecessary.
Hill’s deluge of repetitive filings that are almost completely devoid of content cause
grave concern for her ability to successfully litigate a federal case. It is not the role of the
Clerk’s Office to later redact pleadings in which Hill knowingly includes gratuitous
confidential information, so future motions to retroactively redact or seal on that basis will
be denied and the filings will appear on the public docket. Hill is also cautioned that the
court will summarily strike repetitive or empty filings going forward with no further
warning, and will consider imposing sanctions up to and including dismissal of the case.
Further, the court calls Hill’s attention to the artificial intelligence requirements the court
now imposes:
Any party that uses generative artificial intelligence (“generative AI”) in connection
with filings in this matter must attach to the subject filing a separate declaration disclosing
the use of generative AI and certifying that the filer, in the exercise of the filer’s
independent judgment, has personally reviewed and verified the content of the filing as
accurate and in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The declaration must
identify which, if any, portion of the filing incorporates Generative AI outputs. Any party
who presents to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper incorporating
inaccurate or undeclared generative AI outputs, including but not limited to inaccurate or
non-existent case citations, may be subject to sanctions without further warning.
“Generative AI” as used in the previous paragraph refers to large language models
that accept user input and generate new content. Generative AI includes, but is not limited
to, the tools available through ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, DeepSeek, Google Gemini, and
Grok.
Case 2:26-cv-04202-KML Document 14 Filed 06/29/26 Page 8 of 9

- 9 -
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
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED the Application (Doc. 3) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Seal (Doc. 8) is GRANTED. The
complaint (Doc. 1) and application (Doc. 3) shall be sealed. This order shall not be sealed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the emergency motions (Docs. 4, 5) shall not be
sealed and are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Seal the emergency motion for
extension of time shall not be sealed (Doc. 9) and is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motions to Seal (Docs. 10, 11) shall not be
sealed and are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the amended complaint (third party) Doc. 12 and
amended complaint (Doc. 13) shall not be sealed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the amended complaint (Doc. 13) is DISMISSED
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. No later than July 10, 2026, plaintiff shall file an amended
complaint. That amended complaint must include all her federal and state claim. The Clerk
of Court shall enter judgment and close this case if no amended complaint is filed by that
date.
Dated this 29th day of June, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-04202-KML Document 14 Filed 06/29/26 Page 9 of 9