Chavez v. Arizona Lottery 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
Angelina Chavez,
Plaintiff,
v.
Arizona Lottery and Nevada Lottery,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-02612-PHX-JAT
ORDER
On April 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed a “complaint” and an application to proceed in
forma pauperis. (Docs. 1-2). Generally, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) provides that this Court
should screen all in forma pauperis complaints. See Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL
3358205, *2 (D. Ariz. 2005); Hairston v. Juarez, No. 22-CV-01801-BAS-WVG, 2023 WL
2468967, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2023).
In this case, however, the Court cannot proceed to screening because there is no
complaint on file that satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3. Rule 3 provides: “A civil
action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”
At Document 1 in this case, Plaintiff filed a form complaint which contains pre-
printed sections. After the pre-printing in each section, Plaintiff hand wrote something.
However, Plaintiff’s handwriting is so illegible, the Court cannot discern what she is
alleging.
Local Rule Civil 7.1(b) states:
The body of all documents shall be typed double-spaced and shall not exceed
28 lines per page; they shall not be single-spaced except for footnotes and
Case 2:26-cv-02612-JAT Document 5 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 2

- 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
indented quotations. All pleadings, motions and other original documents filed
with the Clerk shall be in a fixed-pitch type size no smaller than ten (10) pitch
(10 letters per inch) or in a proportional font size no smaller than 13 point,
including any footnotes….
In other cases, the Court has allowed exceptions to this typing requirement if a
plaintiff explains why typing is not possible. In this case, Plaintiff offers no explanation
for her failure to comply with Local Rule Civil 7.1(b). Moreover, because the Court cannot
read Plaintiff’s handwriting, the typing requirement is even more critical.
Because the Court cannot read Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court cannot conclude that
a “complaint” under Rule 3 has been filed to commence this action. Further, the Court
cannot screen the “complaint” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Doc. 1 is stricken. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this
Order to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff must type the amended complaint or explain
why she is unable to comply with Local Rule Civil 7.1(b). If Plaintiff submits anything
further that is handwritten, the filing must be printed in a clear, legible format.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint
within 30 days, the Clerk of the Court shall enter a judgment dismissing this case without
prejudice.1
Dated this 21st day of April, 2026.
1 The Court is doubtful that a judgment is required if no complaint under Rule 3 was ever
filed. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Court has directed entry of
judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
Case 2:26-cv-02612-JAT Document 5 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 2