Wollersheim v. Ngyuen

Filing 12

ORDER Denying 10 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wollersheims complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. If Wollersheim wishes to pursue this case, he must file an amended complaint in compliance with this order by April 25, 2024. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 3/26/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:24-cv-00432-JAD-EJY 4 Mason Wollersheim, 5 Plaintiff v. 6 Order Denying Motion for Emergency Injunction and Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend Francis T. Ngyuen, 7 [ECF Nos. 1, 10] Defendant 8 9 Pro se plaintiff Mason Wollersheim brings this Bivens action against Special Agent 10 Francis T. Ngyuen for violating his constitutional rights in scores of pages worth of ways. 11 Wollersheim’s complaint is difficult to parse, but it appears that he is primarily concerned with 12 actions that Ngyuen and his “conspirators” took while investigating Wollersheim for unspecified 13 crimes. Wollersheim also moves for an “emergency injunction” for “immediate PCS assignment 14 with fully paid . . . move by the US Army for household goods/vehicles to Nellis Air Force Base 15 in Las Vegas, Nevada, under a completely new and separate command.”1 Because 16 Wollersheim’s request for injunctive relief stems from facts separate from those alleged in the 17 complaint, I deny it. And because Wollersheim’s complaint suffers from obvious deficiencies 18 that prevent the court and the defendant from understanding his claims, I dismiss his complaint 19 with leave to amend. 20 21 22 23 1 ECF No. 10. 1 Discussion 2 A. Wollersheim’s request for injunctive relief is denied. 3 “A court’s equitable power lies only over the merits of the case or controversy before it. 4 When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does 5 not have the authority to issue an injunction.”2 For a court to issue injunctive relief, there must 6 be a “sufficient nexus between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the claims 7 set forth in the underlying complaint itself.”3 In short, the injunction sought must be directly 8 related to a plausible claim. Wollersheim’s complaint names Francis Ngyuen as the only defendant and alleges that 9 10 Ngyuen and his conspirators entered Wollersheim’s property without a warrant, illegally 11 wiretapped his phone, falsified federal documents, and discriminated against him because of his 12 wife’s nationality in the course of their investigation into Wollersheim. But his motion for an 13 emergency injunction focuses on the actions of “Major Richard Garcia” and alleges new 14 constitutional claims (based on new facts) against Garcia and other “co-conspirators.” Because 15 Wollersheim’s injunction request is based on new assertions of misconduct by non-parties, I 16 must deny Wollersheim’s motion. 17 B. Wollersheim’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires every complaint to contain “[a] short and plain 19 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”4 While Rule 8 does not 20 require detailed factual allegations, the properly pled claim must contain enough facts to “state a 21 22 23 2 Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). 3 Id. at 636. 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009). 2 1 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”5 Courts may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for 2 failure to satisfy Rule 8 if a complaint is so confusing that its “true substance, if any, is well 3 disguised.”6 Wollersheim’s 168-page complaint does not meet Rule 8’s criteria. While he separates 4 5 the complaint into headings for various alleged violations, the facts he includes under those 6 headings don’t always map to the legal violation he’s identified and his factual allegations are 7 full of redundancy. He wastes inordinate amounts of space summarizing caselaw that he 8 believes is relevant to his claims at the expense of clearly describing the factual bases for them. 9 He also ascribes every action to “defendant and coconspirators” (of which he lists at least 28) 10 without explaining which individuals are responsible for which act. Upon reviewing the 11 complaint in its entirety, I conclude that it does not contain a short and plain statement of the 12 alleged transgressions that Wollersheim hopes to correct, as Rule 8 requires. I thus sua sponte 13 dismiss his complaint with leave to amend to give Wollersheim a chance to file a shorter, less 14 redundant, and less complicated amended complaint. 15 If Wollersheim chooses to file an amended complaint, he is cautioned that an amended 16 complaint supersedes the original complaint, so the amended complaint must be complete in 17 itself. Wollersheim’s amended complaint must therefore contain all claims, defendants, and 18 factual allegations that he wishes to pursue in this lawsuit. In each count, he must allege true 19 facts sufficient to show what each defendant did to violate his rights; he may not allege a series 20 of facts generally against “defendant and coconspirators.” He should not include legal authority 21 22 23 5 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 6 Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). 3 1 to support his claims and should instead focus on the factual circumstances that he alleges 2 violated his rights. 3 4 Conclusion IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Mason Wollersheim’s motion for an emergency 5 injunction [ECF No. 10] is DENIED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wollersheim’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave 7 to amend. If Wollersheim wishes to pursue this case, he must file an amended complaint in 8 compliance with this order by April 25, 2024. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of 9 this case with prejudice. 10 11 _______________________________ U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey March 26, 2024 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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?