Chavez v. Renteria 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.
Adriana Esquimosa Renteria, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-02614-PHX-DJH
ORDER
Before the Court is the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by pro se
Plaintiff Angelina Chavez (Doc. 2). Based on the information provided therein, the Court
finds Plaintiff is unable to pay the required filing fees and will grant the Application and
proceed to screen her Amended Complaint (Doc. 5) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 1
I. Statutory Screening Standards
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised
claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2).
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 demand
1 “While much of § 1915 outlines how prisoners can file proceedings in forma pauperis,
§1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners.”
Long v. Maricopa Cmty. College Dist., 2012 WL 588965, at *1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 22, 2012)
(citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e)
applies to all in forma pauperis complaints[.]”)).
Case 2:26-cv-02614-DJH Document 6 Filed 05/15/26 Page 1 of 6

- 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
detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, thedefendant-
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. “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. Thus, although a plaintiff’s
specific factual allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must
assess whether there are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id.
at 681.
But courts must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler,
627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be
held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). If the Court determines that a
pleading could 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).
II. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
Plaintiff’s Amend Complaint is brought against four Defendants: Adriana Renteria
(“Adriana”), Sandra Renteria (“Sandra”), Fernando Renteria (“Fernando”), and Maria
Renteria (“Maria”) (Doc. 5 at 2). The Amended Complaint is handwritten and in places
illegible. For her Statement of Claim, Plaintiff alleges
[a]pproximately 1 year ago to 2 years while I was incarcerated Defendant
was in agreement with Joseph Hardy to swipe out my bank account. Joseph
Hardy has a copy of my social security card she got a copy of my birth
Case 2:26-cv-02614-DJH Document 6 Filed 05/15/26 Page 2 of 6

- 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
certificate from my parents and my passport. My account was stolen as I
overheard their conversation when I got released from jail and I was
[unreadable] by the police department has a copy of their conversation.
(Id. at 4). Plaintiff says “she” has at least $700 trillion of Plaintiff’s money. (Id.)
As an initial matter, from the information provided in the Amended Complaint, it
does not appear that this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s case. Federal courts have
jurisdiction over only a limited number of cases, which typically involve either a
controversy between citizens of different states (“diversity jurisdiction”) or a question of
federal law (“federal question jurisdiction”). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Federal
courts are obligated to consider whether subject matter jurisdiction exists and dismiss a
case if subject matter jurisdiction is found to be deficient. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (stating that the court presumes lack of
jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise); Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912
F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (“The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of
proving all jurisdictional facts.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (providing that the lack of
subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by the parties or the court).
When she was asked for the basis for federal court jurisdiction on her form
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff checked the box for both federal question and diversity of
citizenship jurisdiction. However, she fails to establish either. Plaintiff does not list any
federal statutes, treaties, and or provisions of the United States Constitution at issue that
would provide the Court with federal question jurisdiction. And though she alleges that
$804,000,000,000,000,000 is in the amount in controversy, she has not alleged complete
diversity of citizenship between the parties: the Amended Complaint indicates that all of
the parties reside in Arizona, with the exception of Defendant Sandra, who resides in
Illinois.2 Wisconsin Dep’t of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 388 (1988) (“A case
falls within the federal district court’s ‘original’ diversity ‘jurisdiction’ only if diversity
2 In what appears to be conflicting information, Plaintiff indicates she is an Arizona
resident on page 1 of her Amended Complaint and an Illinois resident on page 3. (Doc. 5
at 1 & 3). However, diversity of citizenship jurisdiction would not be established even if
Plaintiff is in fact a resident of Illinois, however, because Plaintiff also alleged Defendant
Sandra is a resident of Illinois.
Case 2:26-cv-02614-DJH Document 6 Filed 05/15/26 Page 3 of 6

- 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
of citizenship among the parties is complete, i.e., only if there is no plaintiff and no
defendant who are citizens of the same State.”). Because Plaintiff has not provided a
basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, the Complaint must be dismissed.
Even if the Court could exercise jurisdiction over this matter, the Court finds that
Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against any of the named Defendants. From
the sparce information provided in the Amended Complaint, there is no way to determine
whether any defendant may be liable. Rule 8 requires “simplicity, directness, and
clarity,” such that each defendant should easily be able to determine “what he is being
sued for.” McHenry v Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996). Between the four
named Defendants, the Amended Complaint entirely fails to identify which Defendant
took which action. Plaintiff also fails to identify which laws were alleged violated.
Although the Court should construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants liberally, Plaintiff
is still required to present enough information for the Court to assess whether the
Complaint states a claim for relief. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.
1982).
III. Leave to Amend
The Court will nonetheless allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her Amended
Complaint. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 (when dismissing for failure to state a claim, “a
district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was
made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation
of other facts”) (quoting Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)).
If Plaintiff chooses to amend her Amended Complaint she must conform to the
requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For example, the second
amended complaint must set forth in a clear and simple manner the basis for federal court
jurisdiction, state a cause of action that shows Plaintiff is entitled to relief, and provide a
demand for relief. The Court further notes the “short and plain statement of the claim”
required by Rule 8(a)(2) must not only designate a cause of action, but must also include
enough factual allegations to render the claim plausible. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. Each
Case 2:26-cv-02614-DJH Document 6 Filed 05/15/26 Page 4 of 6

- 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
claim of an alleged violation must be set forth in a separate count. In addition, the second
amended complaint must be typed or in understandable, handwritten print. Plaintiff
must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (the “Local Rules”).
Plaintiff is advised that if she elects to file a second amended complaint but fails to
comply with the instructions explained in this Order, fails to prosecute this action, or
otherwise fails to comply with the federal and local rules, the Court may dismiss the
action with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, or both. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177 (affirming dismissal with
prejudice of amended complaint that did not comply with Rule 8(a)); Nevijel v. North
Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673–74 (9th Cir. 1965) (affirming dismissal without
leave to amend second complaint that was “so verbose, confused and redundant that its
true substance, if any, [was] well disguised”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–
61 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
a pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to comply with a court order).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is
granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Complaint is dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended, legible
complaint in accordance with this Order no later than June 12, 2026. If Plaintiff elects to
file a second amended complaint, the second amended complaint may not be served until
and unless the Court screens it pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 2:26-cv-02614-DJH Document 6 Filed 05/15/26 Page 5 of 6

- 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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects not to file a second amended
complaint by June 12, 2026, the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing this
action without further order of this Court.
Dated this 14th day of May, 2026.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 2:26-cv-02614-DJH Document 6 Filed 05/15/26 Page 6 of 6