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-