Coxon v. United States District Court

Background

The court had granted Benjamin Coxon permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. That required the court to screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. Coxon was not represented by counsel. The United States District Court was the only named defendant.

Reasons for the Order

The court concluded that Coxon had not stated a viable claim. The complaint did not allege facts about any specific conduct by the United States District Court or its employees. It also did not identify specific conduct by any particular person or entity that could be named as a defendant. Instead, it made general allegations that Coxon had been assaulted, battered, threatened, harassed, tormented, subjected to extortion and human trafficking, and harmed through the use of technology.

The court held that these allegations did not meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The allegations also did not satisfy Rule 12(b)(6), the rule requiring dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally valid claim; conclusory statements are not treated as sufficient factual allegations.

The court separately addressed six claims based on federal criminal statutes or the California Penal Code. It explained that the cited criminal statutes may be enforced by the government but do not provide a private individual with a right to sue. The court also found Claims Seven and Eight too vague: Claim Seven referred generally to unspecified violations of Arizona law, and Claim Eight referred generally to possible violations of the laws of states other than California and Arizona.

Order

Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero ordered Coxon, by December 8, 2020, either to file an amended complaint correcting the stated deficiencies or to respond explaining why the current complaint was sufficient. The order stated that any amended complaint would replace the original complaint and would need to include all facts, claims, and defendants Coxon wished to present, without incorporating the original complaint by reference.

The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It stated that if Coxon did not respond by the deadline, the case would be reassigned to a United States district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed with prejudice. The court also continued the case-management conference from November 13, 2020, to January 29, 2021.