Scrase v. Hanson

Filing 2

ORDER Granting 1 Plaintiff's Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Complaint. The Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until 12/2/2013 to file an Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/29/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

***

10

JUDITH SCRASE,
Plaintiff(s),

11
12

vs.

13

BRIAN HANSON,

14
Defendant(s).
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:13-cv-01967-GMN-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 1)

Plaintiff Judith Scrase is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested authority

17

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff also

18

submitted a Complaint on October 28, 2013. Id. This proceeding was referred to this court by

19

Local Rule IB 1-9.

20

I.

21

In Forma Pauperis Application
Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay

22

fees and costs or give security for them. Docket No. 1. Accordingly, the request to proceed in

23

forma pauperis will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court will now review

24

Plaintiff’s complaint.

25

II.

26

Screening the Complaint
Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must additionally screen a

27

complaint pursuant to § 1915. Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the

28

action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

1

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

2

§ 1915(e)(2). When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(a), the plaintiff should be given

3

leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from

4

the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v.

5

United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

6

In addition, the Court has a duty to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the

7

dispute before it. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Federal courts are courts of limited

8

jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by the Constitution and statute. See

9

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. Of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Plaintiff has not alleged

10

federal jurisdiction exists in this case. Plaintiff does not explicitly list the law(s) under which

11

she brings her claims, but the allegations relate to alleged property damage and appear to arise

12

under state law, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not exist.

13

Plaintiff has also not invoked the court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332

14

because she alleges that the parties are all Nevada citizens, see Docket No. 1-1 at 1, and has

15

failed to allege damages in this case that exceed the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000.

16

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave to amend.

17

III.

Conclusion

18

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

19

1.

20
21

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall not
be required to pay the filing fee of four hundred dollars ($400.00).

2.

Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of

22

prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor.

23

This Order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the

24

issuance of subpoenas at government expense.

25

3.

The Clerk of the Court shall file the Complaint.

26

4.

The Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, with leave

27
28

to amend. Plaintiff will have until December 2, 2013 to file an Amended
-2-

1

Complaint, if she believes she can correct the noted deficiencies. If Plaintiff

2

chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer

3

to a prior pleading (i.e., his original Complaint) in order to make the Amended

4

Complaint complete. This is because, as a general rule, an Amended Complaint

5

supersedes the original Complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.

6

1967). Local Rule 15-1 requires that an Amended Complaint be complete in

7

itself without reference to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an Amended

8

Complaint, the original Complaint no longer serves any function in the case.

9

Therefore, in an Amended Complaint, as in an original Complaint, each claim and

10

the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Failure to

11

comply with this Order will result in the recommended dismissal of this case

12

without prejudice.

13

Dated: October 29, 2013

14
15
16

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-