Crebassa v. Ariotta
Filing
3
ORDER granting 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Amended Complaint deadline: 9/29/2017. The Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Clerk is instructed to file complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/31/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
SARAH CREBASSA,
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
MICHAEL SOUZA ARIOTTA,
14
Defendant(s).
Case No. 2:17-cv-02272-APG-NJK
ORDER
In Forma Pauperis Application
20
Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a). Docket No. 1. The Court
21
concludes that Plaintiff has shown an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them.
22
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
23
1915(a). The Clerk’s Office is further INSTRUCTED to file the complaint on the docket. The
24
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
In this case, Plaintiff has filed a one-page complaint consisting of boilerplate assertions that
23
Defendant engaged in various types of misconduct. Docket No. 1-1. Plaintiff fails to identify what
24
cause of action she is intending to bring, on what legal theory, and what factual allegations support
25
the cause of action. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to explain why this Court has jurisdiction over
26
any claim she intends to bring against Defendant.1
27
1
28
“A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary
affirmatively appears.” Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d
-2-
1
To comply with Rule 8, a complaint must set forth coherently who is being sued, for what
2
relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d
3
1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1995). Although the Court construes complaints drafted by pro se litigants
4
liberally, they still must comply with the basic requirements of Rule 8. See, e.g., Montgomery v. Las
5
Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 2014 WL 3724213, at *3 n.3 (D. Nev. July 28, 2014). Moreover,
6
the complaint must sufficiently allege a basis for the Court to assert subject matter jurisdiction over
7
the case.
8
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to sufficiently explain the claim being pursued or allege subject
9
matter jurisdiction, and therefore fails to satisfy Rule 8. The Court will, however, allow Plaintiff an
10
opportunity to amend the complaint to comply with Rule 8.
11
III.
Conclusion
12
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
13
1.
14
15
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
16
prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. This
17
Order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the issuance
18
and/or service of subpoenas at government expense.
19
3.
The Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until
20
September 29, 2017, to file an Amended Complaint, if the noted deficiencies can be
21
corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the
22
Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original Complaint) in order to make
23
the Amended Complaint complete. This is because, as a general rule, an Amended
24
25
26
27
28
1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). “The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that
the case is properly in federal court.” McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir.
2001) (citing McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). With respect
to federal question jurisdiction, federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. With respect to
diversity jurisdiction, federal courts have original jurisdiction when there is complete diversity of
citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
-3-
1
Complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an
2
Amended Complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading.
3
Once a plaintiff files an Amended Complaint, the original Complaint no longer
4
serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an Amended Complaint, as in an
5
original Complaint, each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be
6
sufficiently alleged.
7
4.
Failure to comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of
8
this case.
9
Dated: August 31, 2017
10
11
12
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
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?