IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dwight Maurice Golden, III, No. CV 25-03972-PHX-MTM 10 Plaintiff, v. ORDER 11 Valleywise Behavioral Health Center, 12 Defendant.

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: 23 When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been 24 assigned pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(a)(1) considers dismissal to be 25 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 26 to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge, 27 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and 28 Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee. 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 15 immune from such relief.

16 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) 17 (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 27 my behalf: 28 Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee. 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 15 dismissed where it lacks a cognizable legal theory, lacks sufficient facts to support a 16 cognizable legal claim, or contains allegations disclosing some absolute defense or bar to 17 recovery. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); 18 Weisbuch v. County of L.A., 119 F.3d 778, 783, n.1 (9th Cir. 1997). 19 B. Plaintiff’s Complaint 20 Plaintiff filed this suit naming as a Defendant Valleywise Behavioral Health Center. 21 Plaintiff’s Complaint is two paragraphs long and states that this Court has jurisdiction 22 “pursuant to Legal Wrong §§” and alleges that he was mentally and physically abused and 23 forced to take medication. (Doc. 1.) He claims $1 billion in damages. (Id.) 24 “A patently insubstantial complaint may be dismissed . . . for want of subject-matter 25 jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 26 319, 327 n.6 (1989). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations that unidentified 27 individuals engaged in unspecified abuse, and required him to take unspecific medication 28 through unspecific means are patently insubstantial. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. Furthermore, the Court finds the 2|| deficiencies in the Complaint cannot be cured by amendment and will recommend that 3|| Plaintiffs 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 14|| Parties have fourteen days from the date of service of this Report and Recommendation to 15 file specific, written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days to respond to the objections. 7 Failure to timely object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result 18 in the District Court’s acceptance of the Report and Recommendation without further 19 review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to 20) 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 59 entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. 53 P. 72.

Dated this 12th day of January, 2026.

25 Wr Ahad We Prorcis Honorable Michael T. Morrissey 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28

-4-