Martin v. Aargon Agency Inc. et al

Filing 8

ORDER that Plaintiff has until 1/15/2016 to file a proper Complaint. If a Complaint is not filed by 1/15/2016 this case will be dismissed without further prior notice. Plaintiff's 1 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Defendant Central Credit Services Inc.'s 7 Motion to Extend Time to Respond to 1 Motion is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 12/30/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Darian Martin,

5

Plaintiff

6

v.

7

Aargon Agency, Inc., et al,

8

2:15-cv-02362-JAD-PAL
Order Directing Plaintiff to File a
Proper Complaint and Denying
Pending Motions

Defendants

9

[ECF 1, 7]

Darian Martin commenced this action on December 9, 2015, by filing a “Motion for

10

Summary Judgment.”1 In doing so, Martin has skipped critical steps in the process of this federal

11

lawsuit.

12

Civil actions in federal court are governed by, and must be prosecuted in compliance

13

with, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”). FRCP 2 states, “There is one form of

14

action—the civil action.” And FRCP 3 explains, “A civil action is commenced by filing a

15

complaint with the court.”2 The Advisory Committee notes accompanying Rule 3 explain that

16

“the first step in an action is the filing of the complaint.” Rules 8 and 10 explain what a

17

complaint must contain.

18

Without a complaint, Martin has pled no claim for relief. And without a claim for relief,

19

there is nothing for this court to adjudicate by summary judgment, so Martin’s motion for

20

summary judgment is premature.3

21

Even if I were liberally to construe Martin’s motion for summary judgment as his

22

complaint, it does not comply with FRCP 8. It lacks “a short and plain statement of the grounds

23
1

ECF 1.

25

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (emphasis added).

26

3

24

27
28

Subsection (a) of FRCP 56, the summary-judgment rule, states that “A party may move for
summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense—or the part of each claim or defense—on
which summary judgment is sought.” Without a claim or defense, there is simply nothing for the
plaintiff to move for summary judgment on.

1

for the court’s jurisdiction” and “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

2

pleader is entitled to relief,” both of which are required by Rule 8. Local rule 8-1 states that “The

3

first allegation of any complaint. . . shall state the statutory or other basis of claimed federal

4

jurisdiction and the facts in support thereof.” That requirement is also not satisfied by Martin’s

5

motion.

6

Accordingly, and with good cause appearing,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Martin has until January 15, 2016, to file a proper

8

complaint, which he must then serve in compliance with the rules of this court. If Martin

9

does not file a complaint by January 15, 2016, this case will be dismissed without further

10

prior notice. Martin is cautioned that, despite the fact that he is representing himself, he must

11

still comply with the rules and procedures of this court4 and should therefore familiarize himself

12

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

13

District Court for the District of Nevada. Martin is further advised that each allegation of a

14

complaint “must be simple, concise, and direct.”5 “A party must state [his] claims or defenses in

15

numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”6 And

16

each claim based on a separate legal theory “must be stated in a separate count.”7 Martin is also

17

cautioned that declaratory and injunctive relief are merely remedies that may be awarded for

18

independently viable legal claims; they are not, themselves, viable causes of action or claims for

19

relief.

20
21
22
23
24

4

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules
of procedure that govern other litigants.”); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir.
1995) (“Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the
rules of procedure.”); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[P]ro se litigants
in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of
record.”).

25
5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

7

Id.

26
27
28

2

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Martin’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 1] is

2

DENIED as premature and without prejudice to Martin’s ability to file a motion for summary

3

judgment at an appropriate time in the future.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Central Credit Services, Inc.’s Motion for

5

an Extension of Time to respond to Martin’s motion for summary judgment [ECF 7] is DENIED

6

as moot.

7

Dated this 30th day of December, 2015

8
_______________________________
______________________
__
__
_
__ __
_
_
Jennifer A. Dorsey
nnifer Dorsey
fe
fe
United States District Judge
nited
Judge
ud

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3