Belssner v. Bank of America et al
Filing
4
ORDER that 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The clerk shall file the complaint. The Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until August 31, 2017, to file an Amended Complaint, if the noted deficiencies can be corrected. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/1/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
CHARLES N. BELSSNER,
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
16
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested
17
authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff also
18
submitted a complaint. Docket No. 1-1.
19
I.
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
v.
13
BANK OF AMERICA, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
Case No. 2:17-cv-01666-APG-NJK
ORDER
In Forma Pauperis Application
20
Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a). Docket No. 1. Although a close
21
question, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has shown an inability to prepay fees and costs or give
22
security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted pursuant
23
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Clerk’s Office is further INSTRUCTED to file the complaint on the
24
docket. The Court will now review Plaintiff’s complaint.
25
II.
Screening Complaint
26
Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the
27
complaint pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action
28
is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
1
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). When
2
a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the
3
complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the
4
complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d
5
1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
6
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint
7
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is
8
essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th
9
Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing
10
that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
11
544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands “more
12
than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft
13
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The court
14
must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the complaint, but the same
15
requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Mere recitals of the
16
elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do not suffice. Id. at 678.
17
Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from conceivable to plausible,
18
the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Allegations of a pro se complaint
19
are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
20
F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal construction of pro se pleadings is required
21
after Twombly and Iqbal).
22
Here, the Court understands the basic gist of Plaintiff’s grievance appears to be that he
23
alleges he is disabled, that he spent 2 ½ years attempting to obtain a mortgage from Defendant Bank
24
of America, and that the mortgage application was ultimately denied as incomplete because
25
Defendant Bank of America asserted that it could not confirm a residential address for Plaintiff. See
26
Docket No. 1-1. At the same time, however, the complaint fails to set forth how these allegations
27
support a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or any of
28
the other causes of action mentioned. See id. To comply with Rule 8, a complaint must set forth
-2-
1
coherently who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide
2
discovery. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1995).1
3
Quite simply, the complaint fails to identify how the factual allegations made state a claim
4
for any particular cause of action, and therefore fails to satisfy Rule 8. The Court will, however,
5
allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint so that he can comply with Rule 8.
6
III.
Conclusion
7
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
8
1.
9
10
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
11
prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. This
12
Order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the issuance
13
and/or service of subpoenas at government expense.
14
3.
The Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until
15
August 31, 2017, to file an Amended Complaint, if the noted deficiencies can be
16
corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the
17
Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original Complaint) in order to make
18
the Amended Complaint complete. This is because, as a general rule, an Amended
19
Complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an
20
Amended Complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading.
21
Once a plaintiff files an Amended Complaint, the original Complaint no longer
22
serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an Amended Complaint, as in an
23
original Complaint, each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be
24
sufficiently alleged.
25
26
27
28
1
Although the Court construes complaints drafted by pro se litigants liberally, they still must
comply with the basic requirements of Rule 8. See, e.g., Montgomery v. Las Vegas Metropolitan
Police Dept., 2014 WL 3724213, at *3 n.3 (D. Nev. July 28, 2014).
-3-
1
2
3
4.
Failure to comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of
this case.
Dated: August 1, 2017
4
5
6
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
7
8
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?