United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
Waddoups District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
J. RURSE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Ricky Haws, proceeding in forma pauperis,
filed the Complaint in this matter in October 2018. (ECF No.
3.) Subsequently, the undersigned set a status conference for
January 15, 2019 to give Mr. Haws the opportunity to explain
the claims he asserts and the bases for those claims. (ECF
No. 10.) Mr. Haws failed to appear at the status conference.
(ECF No. 12.)
Court reviewed Mr. Haws's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and finds that it fails to state a
plausible claim for relief. Accordingly, the undersigned
RECOMMENDS the District Judge dismiss Mr. Haws's
Complaint without prejudice.
October 24, 2018, a magistrate judge granted Mr. Haws's
request to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter.
(ECF No. 2.) Mr. Haws filed some documents with the court as
a Complaint along with a Civil Cover Sheet. (Compl., ECF No.
3; Civil Cover Sheet, ECF No. 3-1.) The documents do not
resemble a complaint and fail to provide sufficient
information to even begin to identify specific defendants or
incidents. (Compl., ECF No. 3.) The Civil Cover Sheet
identifies the Cedar City Police Department as the sole
defendant, however nothing in the documents makes any
reference to Cedar City or its police. (Compl., ECF No. 3;
Civil Cover Sheet, ECF No. 3-1.)
documents identified as the Complaint describe purported
interactions Mr. Haws had with various law enforcement
officials, including “[t]he police officer, ”
“3 police officers, ” “[t]he guard, ”
“[t]he officer, ” and “[t]he
Prosecutor” but does not identify the officials or the
departments involved, the date of the incident, or the
location of the incident. (Compl. 1, ECF No. 3.) The
Complaint alleges one officer threatened Mr. Haws with a
dart; three police officers tackled him; he did not resist;
and he ended up in the emergency room as a result.
(Id.) Mr. Haws further alleges the officers searched
him at the ER and found drugs. (Id.) The Complaint
subsequently references the Fourth Amendment. (Id.
Complaint references Maricopa County, located in Arizona, in
relation to a separate incident while in a “unit for
the mentally ill.” (See id. at 1.) However,
that same paragraph states “This paragraph links events
that happened separately but is not really a single
event.” (Id.) Furthermore, Mr. Haws appears to
have written on the front page “according to the
charges the great stat[e] of ___made” but never filled
in the state. (Id.)
Complaint also recites various other constitutional
amendments, including the Fifth Amendment, and states that
“[t]he 3 arrests for the same offense within a 3 month
period along with the [sic] another 3 through-out the
lifetime is an instance of double jeopardy mentioned in the
5th amendment.” (Id. at 2.) The Complaint
further asserts that “[t]he whole system is a
conspiracy of tyrants”, and “[t]he amount of
damage and destruction is immense.” (Id. at
Civil Cover Sheet indicates that Mr. Haws asserts a
conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and he attached
a printout with underlining and handwritten notes on §
1985(2)-“Obstructing justice; intimidating party,
witness, or juror”. (Compl. 4, ECF No. 3; Civil Cover
Sheet, ECF No. 3-1.) The notation seems to complain about the
prosecutor and judge forcing Mr. Haws not to have a jury
trial. (Compl. 4, ECF No. 3.) He also underlines and has
handwritten notes next to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the
printout, complaining that all his property was lost; he lost
all his rights while in jail; and he suffered intimidation
and torture in jail. (Id.)
the Complaint cites the Second Amendment and notes going to
jail infringed on his right to bear arms. (Compl. 2, ECF No.
the Court authorizes a party to proceed in forma pauperis,
the Court must “dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In determining whether a complaint fails
to state a claim for relief under this statute, the Court
employs the same standard used for analyzing motions to
dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Kay v.
Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217-18 (10th Cir. 2007).
this standard, “ ‘[t]he court's function . .
. is . . . to assess whether the plaintiff's complaint
alone is legally sufficient to state a claim for which relief
may be granted.' ” Smith v. United States,561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Sutton v.
Utah State Sch. for Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226,
1236 (10th Cir. 1999)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), and further provides
that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and
direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). “Rule 8 serves the
important purpose of ...