Ditko v. Fabiano
2:17-cv-00132
D. Ariz.May 9, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Stephen Paul Ditko filed an employment-related complaint under Arizona’s Employment Protection Act (A.R.S. § 23-1501) against Brian Fabiano, FabCom, and Fabiano Communications, seeking statutory remedies or back pay for a January 19, 2016 termination.
- Ditko filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis; the court found his financial affidavit sufficient and granted IFP status.
- The Complaint largely quoted statutory text and demanded unspecified damages without alleging facts showing a written employment contract, breach, party citizenship, or the amount in controversy.
- The magistrate judge screened the IFP complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Rule 8(a), finding defects in subject-matter jurisdiction allegations and in the sufficiency of factual allegations to state a claim.
- The Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 but granted leave to amend by a set deadline, warning that failure to cure would result in dismissal under § 1915(e) and/or Rule 41(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal jurisdiction | Implicit: case properly in federal court (no supporting allegations) | No record of defendants’ position in opinion | Complaint fails to allege federal-question or diversity jurisdiction; jurisdictional facts not pleaded, so dismissal follows |
| Sufficiency under Rule 8 / failure to state a claim | Ditko cites A.R.S. § 23-1501 and demands statutory remedy / back pay | No responsive defense recited; court assesses on the pleadings | Complaint consists of statutory text and conclusions; lacks factual allegations of a written contract, breach, or damages—fails Rule 8 and is dismissed |
| IFP status | Ditko asserted inability to pay filing fee | N/A | Court grants in forma pauperis based on submitted financial affidavit |
| Amendment opportunity and consequences | Ditko may cure defects by amended complaint | N/A | Court grants leave to amend by deadline, warns dismissal will follow if deficiencies persist |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints and requires dismissal of claims that fail to state a claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility and non-speculative pleading standard)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) (complaint must give fair notice with underlying facts to allow defense)
- Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978) (federal courts must respect limits on subject-matter jurisdiction)
- McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) (failure to comply with Rule 8 can justify dismissal with prejudice)
- Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671 (9th Cir. 1981) (amended complaints that remain verbose, confusing, or conclusory may be dismissed)