Doe v. Federal District Court, 020312 FED9, 08-16942

Docket Nº:08-16942
Party Name:JANE DOE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT; OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; STATE OF ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL; PIMA COUNTY; TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF TUCSON; CARONDELET HEALTH NETWORK; MAYA MELENDEZ, Doctor, and others; SONORA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER; BUPP, Doctor, and others; SOUTHERN ARIZONA MENTAL HEALTH CENTER
Judge Panel:Before: HUG, SKOPIL, and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:February 03, 2012
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

JANE DOE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT; OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; STATE OF ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL; PIMA COUNTY; TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF TUCSON; CARONDELET HEALTH NETWORK; MAYA MELENDEZ, Doctor, and others; SONORA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER; BUPP, Doctor, and others; SOUTHERN ARIZONA MENTAL HEALTH CENTER; UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS, at Kino Campus; PELAYO, Doctor, and others; CODAC BEHAVIOIRAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., including Dr. Bupp; HANLON-TOTH, Doctor, and others; JAN BREWER, Arizona Secretary of State; PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; ANDREA HERBERT, Carondolet Health Network, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-16942

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

February 3, 2012

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted September 26, 2011 [**]San Francisco, California.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Frank R. Zapata, Senior District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 4:07-cv-00196-FRZ.

Before: HUG, SKOPIL, and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[*]

Jane Doe appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing her case. Doe's amended complaint raised numerous claims against multiple federal, state and private parties, apparently arising out of incidents of involuntary commitment in 2005 and 2006. We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The facts of the case are known to the parties. We repeat them only as necessary.

I

Doe first argues that the district court erred by holding that the amended complaint failed to comply with the pleading requirements and by granting defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and motions for summary judgment.

We review the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). The district court correctly held that Doe's amended complaint did not comport with the pleading standards set forth in Rules 8(a) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A complaint "does not require 'detailed factual allegations' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)) (internal citations omitted). And although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, even pro se...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP