Golden v. Valleywise Behavioral Health Center

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
IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Dwight Maurice Golden, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
Valleywise Behavioral Health Center,
Defendant.
No. CV 25-03972-PHX-MTM
ORDER
TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. McNAMEE, SENIOR UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE:
This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to General Order 21-25.1 On
October 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff filed an Application for
Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on November 6, 2025. (Doc. 2.)
1 General Order 21-25 states in relevant part:
When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been
assigned pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(a)(1) considers dismissal to be
appropriate but lacks the jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)
due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent
to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and
Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee.
Case 2:25-cv-03972-SMM-MTM Document 9 Filed 01/13/26 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
I. Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon
completion of a proper affidavit of indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). In the application
to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, Plaintiff declares under penalty of perjury that
he is unable to pay the filing fee and other costs associated with this case. Plaintiff presents
financial information to support his application. Having considered Plaintiff’s application,
the Court will recommend that it be granted.
II. In Forma Pauperis Complaint
A. Legal Standards
With respect to in forma pauperis proceedings, the Court shall dismiss such actions
at any time if it determines that:
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal –
(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000)
(28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “applies to all in forma pauperis complaints,” not merely those filed
by prisoners). The Court must therefore dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if it fails
to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 (“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.”).
In order to state a claim for relief, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that a complaint must include: (1) “a short and plain statement of the grounds for
the court’s jurisdiction,” (2) “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court
Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on
my behalf:
Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee.
Case 2:25-cv-03972-SMM-MTM Document 9 Filed 01/13/26 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
pleader is entitled to relief,” and (3) “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
The short and plain statement for relief “need not contain detailed factual allegations;
rather, it must plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (“The plausibility standard . . . asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.”).
In addition, Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-
harmed-me accusation,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, and “conclusory allegations of law and
unwarranted inferences are not sufficient,” Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
1998). Further, “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(d)(1). Where a complaint contains the factual elements of a cause, but those elements are
scattered throughout the complaint without any meaningful organization, the complaint
does not set forth a “short and plain statement of the claim” for purposes of Rule 8. Sparling
v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, a complaint may be
dismissed where it lacks a cognizable legal theory, lacks sufficient facts to support a
cognizable legal claim, or contains allegations disclosing some absolute defense or bar to
recovery. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988);
Weisbuch v. County of L.A., 119 F.3d 778, 783, n.1 (9th Cir. 1997).
B. Plaintiff’s Complaint
Plaintiff filed this suit naming as a Defendant Valleywise Behavioral Health Center.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is two paragraphs long and states that this Court has jurisdiction
“pursuant to Legal Wrong §§” and alleges that he was mentally and physically abused and
forced to take medication. (Doc. 1.) He claims $1 billion in damages. (Id.)
“A patently insubstantial complaint may be dismissed . . . for want of subject-matter
jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 327 n.6 (1989). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations that unidentified
individuals engaged in unspecified abuse, and required him to take unspecific medication
through unspecific means are patently insubstantial. Accordingly, the Court will
Case 2:25-cv-03972-SMM-MTM Document 9 Filed 01/13/26 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
recommend that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. Furthermore, the Court finds the
deficiencies in the Complaint cannot be cured by amendment and will recommend that
Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. See Schucker v. Rockwood,
846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to
amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could
not be cured by amendment.”).
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 6) be GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) be
DISMISSED without leave to amend.
This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The
parties have fourteen days from the date of service of this Report and Recommendation to
file specific, written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days to respond to the objections.
Failure to timely object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result
in the District Court’s acceptance of the Report and Recommendation without further
review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to
timely object to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a
waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order of judgment
entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72.
Dated this 12th day of January, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-03972-SMM-MTM Document 9 Filed 01/13/26 Page 4 of 4