Dawkins v. Office of Personnel Management

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
Elkino Dawkins, Sr,
Plaintiff,
v.
The Office of Personnel Management,
Defendant.
No. CV-26-00186-TUC-JCH
ORDER
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Elkino Dawkins, Sr.’s Complaint alleging
various constitutional violations (Doc. 1) and Application to Proceed In District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Application”) (Doc. 2). The Court will deny the
Application without prejudice and direct Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
I. Application to Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying Fees and Costs
Plaintiff’s Application states he cannot pay the costs associated with these
proceedings because he is homeless. Doc. 2 at 5. Plaintiff also asserts he makes $170 a
month from his employment, but the application does not list any former or current
employers. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff states he spends $293 a month on food but lists $0 in total
monthly expenses. Id. at 4–5.
Given these inconsistencies, some of the information in Plaintiff’s Application is
necessarily inaccurate. Plaintiff has filed at least eight other actions in the District of
Arizona, two of which he filed contemporaneously with the instant action.1 Plaintiff has
1 Dawkins v. Jones, 4:21-CV-287; Dawkins v. H & R Block, 4:21-CV-288; Dawkins v.
Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 4:22-CV-456; Dawkins v. Pima Community College,
Case 4:26-cv-00186-JCH Document 5 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 3

- 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
been granted in forma pauperis status in each prior action. Each time, Plaintiff has failed
to state a claim and amend his complaints as the Court directed. Plaintiff’s history of filing
insufficient complaints and failing to follow Court orders to correct the deficiencies has
been a drain on judicial resources. Given this history and the inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s
Application, the Court declines to use its discretion to grant Plaintiff in forma pauperis
status. The Court will give Plaintiff 30 days from the date of this Order to pay the $350.00
filing fee and the $55.00 administrative fee or file a renewed application addressing the
inconsistencies discussed above. Failure to pay these fees or file a renewed application
within 30 days will result in the dismissal of this case without further notice.
II. Complaint
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), in a case in which a plaintiff has been granted in
forma pauperis status, the Court must screen and dismiss a complaint that fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted. To state a claim, a pleading 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). 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. “[A] complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 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.
Here, because the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Application, screening the Complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) would be premature. Still, in the interest of judicial
efficiency, the Court conducted a cursory review of the Complaint. The Complaint asserts
that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under various amendments, but it
4:22-CV-457; Dawkins v. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 4:22-CV-458; Dawkins v. Ariz. Dep’t of
Econ. Sec., 4:24-CV-237; Dawkins v. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 4:26-CV-185; Dawkins v.
Capital One Fin. Corp., 4:26-CV-187.
Case 4:26-cv-00186-JCH Document 5 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 3

- 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
does not contain a single factual allegation to support these claims. As such, the Complaint
plainly fails to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Because the Court would
dismiss the Complaint upon screening, the Court will direct Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint that includes factual allegations to support his claims.
III. Order
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and the
$55.00 administrative fee or file a renewed application within 30 days of the date of this
Order. If Plaintiff fails to either pay the fees or file a renewed application within 30 days,
the Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice and
without further notice to Plaintiff and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint
addressing the above deficiencies within 30 days of the date of this Order. If Plaintiff fails
to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of Court must, without further
notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to abide by
Court order and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot.
Dated this 20th day of April, 2026.
Case 4:26-cv-00186-JCH Document 5 Filed 04/21/26 Page 3 of 3