Rosiere v. United States of America

Filing 68

ORDER that 42 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint, (ECF No. 1 ), is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 5/9/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 SHAUN ROSIERE, 4 Plaintiff, 5 vs. 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 7 Defendant. 8 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:16-cv-02286-GMN-PAL ORDER 9 Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 42), filed by Defendant 10 11 United States of America (“Defendant”). Plaintiff Shaun Rosiere1 (“Plaintiff”) filed a 12 Response, (ECF No. 54), and Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 62). For the reasons discussed 13 below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion. 14 I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 1), is one of several nearly identical requests under the 15 16 Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Over the span of approximately fourteen months, 17 Plaintiff has filed nine cases involving these FOIA requests in seven federal districts.2 Almost 18 all of Plaintiff’s FOIA requests relate to two criminal cases against him in the District of New 19 20 1 21 In light of Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant, the Court has liberally construed his filings, holding them to standards less stringent than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 22 2 23 24 25 See Rosiere v. United States, 2:15-cv-02187 (D. Nev.) (filed Nov. 16, 2015) (dismissed as “frivolous and malicious”); Rosiere v. United States, 3:16-cv-00341-BRM-TJB (D.N.J.) (filed Jan. 19, 2016) (pending); Rosiere v. United States, 1:16-cv-00143-LTB (D. Colo.) (filed Jan. 19, 2016) (dismissed as duplicative); Rosiere v. United States, 1:16-cv-00260 (D. Haw.) (filed May 23, 2016) (dismissed for improper venue); Rosiere v. United States, 3:16-cv-00905-HZ (D. Or.) (filed May 23, 2016) (same); Rosiere v. United States, 2:16-cv-03571-DSFGJS (C.D. Cal.) (filed May 23, 2016) (dismissed for improper venue and duplicative claims); Rosiere v. United States, 1:16-cv-01251-LTB (D. Colo.) (filed May 23, 2016) (dismissed as duplicative); Rosiere v. United States, 2:16-cv-02286-GMN-PAL (D. Nev.) (filed May 23, 2016) (instant case) (transferred from Northern District of California); Rosiere v. United States, 2:17-cv-00144-JAD-PAL (D. Nev.) (filed Jan. 13, 2017) (pending). Page 1 of 4 1 Jersey, a civil forfeiture case in the District of Colorado involving Plaintiff and corporations 2 apparently affiliated with him, and Plaintiff’s incarceration in Colorado. (See, e.g., Compl.). 3 Plaintiff initiated this case in the Northern District of California on May 23, 2016. (See 4 id.). Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) was granted. 5 (See Am. Order, ECF No. 6). On September 27, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Laurel 6 Beeler of the Northern District of California transferred the case to this Court. (See Order, ECF 7 No. 33). In the instant Motion, Defendant seeks to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint as malicious. 8 II. 9 LEGAL STANDARD Federal courts are required to dismiss an IFP action if the complaint fails to state a claim 10 upon which relief may be granted, is legally “frivolous or malicious,” or seeks monetary relief 11 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The standard for 12 determining whether a plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under 13 § 1915 is the same as the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 14 for failure to state a claim. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). 15 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a court dismiss a 16 cause of action that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See North Star Int’l 17 v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). When considering a motion to 18 dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, dismissal is appropriate only when the 19 complaint does not give the defendant fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds 20 on which it rests. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In considering 21 whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, the Court will take all material allegations 22 as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See NL Indus., Inc. v. 23 Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). 24 25 The Court, however, is not required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. See Sprewell v. Golden Page 2 of 4 1 State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). A formulaic recitation of a cause of action 2 with conclusory allegations is not sufficient; a plaintiff must plead facts showing that a 3 violation is plausible, not just possible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing 4 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (emphasis added). “A claim has facial plausibility when the 5 plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 6 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a plaintiff’s 7 complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 8 to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Prolix, confusing complaints” should be dismissed because 9 “they impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 10 (9th Cir. 1996). 11 III. 12 DISCUSSION Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s filing of identical and duplicative litigation in multiple 13 federal courts qualifies this case as a “malicious” action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 14 The Court notes that a majority of the related cases filed by Plaintiff have been dismissed for 15 improper venue or as frivolous and duplicative. Indeed, the Tenth Circuit has twice affirmed 16 dismissal of actions filed by Plaintiff. See Rosiere v. United States, 650 F. App’x 593, 595 17 (10th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal by district court that “correctly concluded [Plaintiff’s] 18 complaint was ‘materially on all fours’ with the complaints he filed in the Districts of Nevada 19 and New Jersey”); Rosiere v. United States, No. 16-1313, 2016 WL 7367768, at *3 (10th Cir. 20 Dec. 20, 2016) (“The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that [Plaintiff’s] 21 litigation activity was malicious.”). 22 Likewise, Judge Andrew P. Gordon dismissed a similar complaint also filed by Plaintiff 23 in this District, which Plaintiff then appealed to the Ninth Circuit. See Rosiere v. United States, 24 2:15-cv-02187 (D. Nev.) (filed Nov. 16, 2015). The Ninth Circuit dismissed this appeal as 25 frivolous. See Rosiere v. United States, No. 17-15103 (9th Cir. April 28, 2017). The Court Page 3 of 4 1 agrees that the nearly identical Complaint filed in this case regarding the same FOIA requests is 2 frivolous and malicious. Dismissal with prejudice is therefore appropriate pursuant to 28 3 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 4 IV. 5 6 7 CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 42), is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 1), is DISMISSED with prejudice. 9 DATED this _____ day of May, 2017. 8 9 10 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 4 of 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?