Ali v. Cash Time Title Loan Centers
4:17-cv-00546
D. Ariz.Nov 30, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Andre H. Ali sued Cash Time Title Loan Centers alleging illegal debt collection, refusal to accept his nationality, and seeking $8 million.
- Ali filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis; he reported disability benefits, minimal assets, and expenses roughly equaling income.
- Complaint included exhibits referencing Moorish National Republic materials, a name declaration, ID application, and title-loan documents.
- No federal-law allegations or facts supporting diversity jurisdiction were pled; both parties are Arizona citizens.
- Court conducted statutory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
- Court granted IFP, dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, and gave Ali 30 days to amend; an unrelated filing by Ali was struck.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ali is entitled to proceed IFP | Ali alleges indigence, receives disability, has minimal assets | No contest recorded in order | Granted — court found inability to pay and allowed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) |
| Whether the district court has subject-matter jurisdiction | Ali asserted claims (predatory lending, discrimination) but gave no federal-law basis | Defendant contended to be Arizona citizen; diversity not satisfied | Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (no federal question; diversity not met) |
| Whether complaint states a claim under Rule 8 | Ali alleged harms (pain, suffering, predatory lending, nationality refusal) without factual detail | Defendant not addressed on merits in order | Dismissed for failure to state a claim; allegations are conclusory and do not put defendant on notice; dismissal with leave to amend |
| Whether miscellaneous filing asserting rule violations should remain on record | Ali filed MDIP Rules of Federal Civil Proceedings Violations before service | Not applicable / no substantive basis | Struck from the record as improperly filed (no service; no violations yet) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain more than conclusory allegations)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (Rule 8’s simplified pleading standard applies broadly)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (pro se complaints must be liberally construed and given leave to amend when curable)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
- Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225 (court should not tell pro se litigant how to cure pleading defects)
- Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193 (complaint must put defendant on notice of claims)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (an amended complaint supersedes the original)
- Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542 (same principle regarding amendment and superseding pleadings)
- King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565 (claims omitted from amended complaint are waived)