Carter v. Allstate Insurance Company 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
Derric Carter,
Plaintiff,
v.
Allstate Insurance Company, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-02402-PHX-SHD
ORDER
Pending is Plaintiff Derric Carter’s renewed application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”), (Doc. 11). For the reasons stated below, Carter’s application to proceed
IFP will be granted, and his Complaint, (Doc. 1), will be dismissed with leave to amend.
I. IFP APPLICATION
“There is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when
someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235
(9th Cir. 2015). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges
that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Id. at 1234
(citing Adkins v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)).
Having reviewed the application to proceed IFP, (Doc. 11), the Court finds Carter
cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life. Thus, the motion to
proceed IFP will be granted.
II. SCREENING THE COMPLAINT
Because Carter is proceeding IFP in this case, the Court must screen his Complaint.
Case 2:25-cv-02402-SHD Document 12 Filed 04/04/26 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
A. Legal Standard
Congress provided with respect to in forma pauperis cases that a district court
“shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that the
“allegation of poverty is untrue” or that the “action or appeal” is “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.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of section 1915 outlines how prisoners
can file proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e) applies to all in forma
pauperis proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). “It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only
permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint
that fails to state a claim.” Id. Therefore, this court must dismiss an in forma
pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious.
Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358205, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2005).
“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); see also
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that
screening pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates the familiar standard applied in
the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6)”).
Hairston v. Juarez, 2023 WL 2468967, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2023).
B. Carter’s Complaint
Under Rule 8(a)(2), “a pleading must contain a ‘short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–
78 (2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). While this does not require “detailed factual
allegations, . . . it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Id. at 678 (quotation marks omitted). 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. (quotation marks omitted). Thus, a complaint must include
“factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
Case 2:25-cv-02402-SHD Document 12 Filed 04/04/26 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
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.; see also id. (“Nor
does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual
enhancement.” (citation modified)). Pro se filings must be construed “liberally when
evaluating them under Iqbal.” Jackson v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 755, 763–64 (9th Cir. 2014).
The Complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations to survive screening
under § 1915(e). Carter alleges only that he is bringing a “car accident claim” against
Defendants Allstate Insurance Company and David Beck, for an accident that occurred on
September 25, 2023, and resulted in lower back injuries. (See Doc. 1 at 4.) Carter does
not identify the federal or state laws that Defendants allegedly violated, nor has he
established that this Court has jurisdiction over his claims. The parties do not appear to be
diverse—Defendant Beck is a resident of Arizona, as is Carter—and Carter does not assert
federal claims. (Doc. 1 at 1–2, 4.) Because Carter “has not provided the Court with any
basis upon which to assess [his] claim,” Dowling v. Unknown Party, 2024 WL 3595619,
at *2 (D. Ariz. 2024), or alleged sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction in federal court,
his Complaint will be dismissed.
III. LEAVE TO AMEND
Unless a court determines that a pleading cannot be cured by the allegation of other
facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal
of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A
finding that any amendment would be futile justifies dismissal without leave to amend.
Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (1995).
Here, it cannot be concluded that amendment would be futile, in part because it is
unclear what claims Carter is asserting. It is noted, however, that the jurisdictional issues
presented by Carter’s claims are concerning. Carter will be granted the opportunity to
amend, but failure to allege facts supporting the court’s jurisdiction in any amended
pleading will result in dismissal of this action.
Carter must note that an amended Complaint supersedes the original Complaint.
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard
Case 2:25-cv-02402-SHD Document 12 Filed 04/04/26 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
Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). Thus, after amendment, the original
complaint is treated as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action raised
in the original complaint is waived if it is not alleged in an amended complaint. See Lacey
v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). And any Defendant not
renamed in the amended complaint will remain dismissed from this case. See id.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to proceed IFP (Doc. 11) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for the
reasons stated above. Carter has 30 days from the date of this Order to file an amended
complaint. Consistent with LRCiv 15.1, Carter shall file, concurrently with any amended
complaint, a notice of filing the amended pleading that attaches a copy of the amended
pleading indicating in what ways it differs from the Complaint.1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Carter files an amended complaint, the Clerk
of Court shall not issue a summons until the Court screens the amended complaint and
orders service consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Carter fails to file an amended complaint
within 30 days, the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing this case with prejudice.
Dated this 4th day of April, 2026.
1 The Local Rules and a Handbook for Self-Represented Litigants are available on
this District Court’s website. See U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, Information for
those Proceeding Without an Attorney (Pro Se), https://www.azd.uscourts.gov/proceeding-
without-attorney (last visited April 3, 2026).
Case 2:25-cv-02402-SHD Document 12 Filed 04/04/26 Page 4 of 4