Moore v. Centennial Park, et al.

Filing 2

ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 1 Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court must file Plaintiffs complaint 1 -1. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complai nt 1 -1 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with leave to amend. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff must file the amended complaint by 6/16/17. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 5/17/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 7 8 9 10 LOIS MOORE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) CENTENNIAL PARK, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:16-cv-00113-APG-CWH SCREENING ORDER 11 Presently before the court is pro se Plaintiff Lois Moore’s application to proceed in forma 12 13 pauperis (ECF No. 1), filed on January 20, 2016. Also before the court is Plaintiff’s complaint 14 (ECF No. 1-2), filed on the same date. 15 I. 16 IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION Plaintiff has submitted the declaration required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability 17 to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in 18 forma pauperis will be granted. 19 II. 20 SCREENING COMPLAINT Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 21 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 22 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, file to state a claim on which relief may be 23 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for 25 failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 26 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual 27 matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft v. 28 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 1 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his 2 claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) 3 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 4 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of material 5 fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler Summit 6 P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). Although 7 the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff must 8 provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 9 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. Unless it is 10 clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se plaintiff should 11 be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s deficiencies. Cato v. 12 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 13 Here, Plaintiff submitted to the court a one-page complaint that names “Centennial Park 14 (Kery Thompson)” as the defendants. (ECF No. 1-1.) The complaint alleges “Plaintiff Lois Moore 15 is seeking damages due to illegal eviction and lock out” and demands damages of $10,000. (Id.) 16 Plaintiff does not include any other factual allegations, such as the address of the residence from 17 which she was evicted, the date of the eviction, or the general circumstances surrounding the 18 eviction. Nor does she allege facts explaining Centennial Park and Kery Thompson’s role in the 19 eviction or the reasons she is seeking relief from them. Additionally, Plaintiff does not include any 20 statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction in this case. Without additional factual 21 allegations regarding the underlying dispute and Centennial Park and Kery Thompson’s role in the 22 case, the court cannot evaluate whether Plaintiff’s complaint states a claim against these parties. 23 The court therefore will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for the Plaintiff to file an 24 amended complaint. 25 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the document must be titled “Amended 26 Complaint.” The amended complaint must contain a short and plain statement describing the 27 underlying case, the defendants’ involvement in the case, and the approximate dates of their 28 involvement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a 2 1 flexible pleading standard, Plaintiff still must give the defendants fair notice of the Plaintiff’s 2 claims against it and Plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. 3 The amended complaint also must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the 4 court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Regarding jurisdiction, Plaintiff is advised that 5 “[f]ederal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by 6 Constitution and statute.” K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir. 7 2011) (quotation omitted). Federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions 8 arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal 9 district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in 10 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of 11 different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “Section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship; 12 each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.” Morris v. 13 Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). 14 Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that if she files an amended complaint, the original 15 complaint (ECF No. 1-1) no longer serves any function in this case. As such, the amended 16 complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to prior pleadings or other 17 documents. The court cannot refer to a prior pleading or other documents to make Plaintiff’s 18 amended complaint complete. 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma 20 Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff will not be required to pay the filing fee in this 21 action. 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 for fees or costs. This order 23 granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis does not extend to the issuance of subpoenas at 24 government expense. 25 26 27 28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court must file Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with leave to amend. If 3 1 Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff must file the amended complaint by June 2 16, 2017. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 3 dismissed without prejudice. 4 5 DATED: May 17, 2017 6 7 8 ________________________________________ C.W. Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?