Holmis v. Internal Affairs NLV

Filing 3

ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 ) is granted. Plaintiff will not be required to pay an initial installment fee. Nevertheless, the full filing fee will still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The movant herein is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of fees or costs or the giving of security therefor. IT IS FURTHER O RDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Clark County Detention Center will forward payments from the account of David Holmes, Inmate No. 1210144, to the Clerk of the United States District C ourt, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits (in months that the account exceeds $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send a copy of this order to the Finance Division of the Clerk's Office. The Clerk of Court is also kindly directed to send a copy of this order to the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the Clark County Detention Center at 330 S. Casino Center Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89101. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, even if this action is dismissed, or is otherwise unsuccessful, the full filing fee will still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. IT IS FURTHE R ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to file Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1 -1) on the docket but shall not issue summons. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint (ECF No. 1 -1) is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until September 26, 2024, to file an amended complaint if the noted deficiencies can be corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is i nformed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) to make the amended complaint complete. This is because, generally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an ame nded complaint be complete without reference to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each c laim and the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Failure to comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of this case. Amended Complaint deadline: 9/26/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 8/27/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF. CC: Finance. Copy of Order mailed to Chief of Inmate Services for the Clark County Detention Center. - RJDG)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5
6

***
David Holmes,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9

Case No. 2:24-cv-01414-GMN-DJA

v.

Order

Internal Affairs NLV,
Defendant.

10

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested

11
12

authority to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff also submitted a complaint. (ECF

13

No. 1-1). Because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s application is complete, it grants the application

14

to proceed in forma pauperis. However, because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does

15

not properly assert sufficient facts, it dismisses the complaint with leave to amend.

16

I.

In forma pauperis application.
Plaintiff filed the affidavit required by § 1915(a). (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has shown an

17
18

inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed

19

in forma pauperis will be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court will now review

20

Plaintiff’s complaint.

21

II.

22

Legal standard for screening.
Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the

23

complaint under § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is

24

legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks

25

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

26

When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend

27

the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the

28

1

complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70

2

F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

3

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a

4

complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule

5

12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d

6

719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of

7

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp.

8

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual

9

allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the

10

elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v.

11

Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations

12

contained in the complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal,

13

556 U.S. at 679. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory

14

allegations, do not suffice. Id. at 678. Where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the

15

line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

16

Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings

17

drafted by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal

18

construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal).

19

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by

20

the Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004). Under 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the

22

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Cases “arise under” federal law either when

23

federal law creates the cause of action or where the vindication of a right under state law

24

necessarily turns on the construction of federal law. Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277

25

F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002). Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists is based on the

26

“well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a

27

federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

28

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), federal
Page 2 of 5

1

district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in

2

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of

3

different states.” Generally speaking, diversity jurisdiction exists only where there is “complete

4

diversity” among the parties; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each

5

of the defendants. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).

6

III.

Screening the complaint.
Plaintiff sues Defendant Internal Affairs of the City of North Las Vegas, alleging

7
8

violations of various Constitutional rights and federal civil rights statutes. (ECF No. 1-1 at 1).

9

Plaintiff alleges that, on January 29, 2020, North Las Vegas Police Department officers attacked

10

him, leaving him with life threatening injuries. (Id. at 3-5). He asserts that he complained to

11

Defendant but that Defendant conducted the investigation poorly. (Id.). However, Plaintiff’s

12

claims against Defendant fail because they do not provide sufficient factual detail and because it

13

appears that they are barred by the statute of limitations.
First, Plaintiff’s allegations primarily describe officers’ actions in assaulting him. But he

14
15

does not sue those officers in this lawsuit. Otherwise, his allegations against Defendant are

16

conclusory, only stating that the Defendant conducted the investigation poorly, “showed a great

17

lack of caring,” “violated [his] rights,” and did not result in discipline for the officers involved.

18

(Id.). This is not sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Second, Plaintiff’s claims appear to be barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s

19
20

claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir.

21

1991) (laying out the elements of a § 1983 claim, including that the plaintiff allege a violation of

22

rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute by a person acting under color of

23

state law). Plaintiff also invokes 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986. 1 The statute of limitations for

24

claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the state limitations period for personal injury claims,

25
26
27
28

1

Although Plaintiff also brings his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, that statute does not provide a
separate cause of action. Instead, it provides that the Court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees
to the prevailing party in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Merry v. Sandoval, No. 3:16-cv00164-MMD-WGC, 2019 WL 6332159, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 8, 2019).
Page 3 of 5

1

which in Nevada, is two years. See Perez v. Seevers, 869 F.2d 425, 426 (9th Cir. 1989) (per

2

curiam) (citing Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 61, 279-80 (1985)); Nev. Rev. Stat. 11.190(4)(e).

3

Claims brought under § 1985 are likewise governed by the statute of limitations for personal

4

injury claims and, as such, the statute of limitations for such claims is two years. McDougal v.

5

County of Imperial, 942 F.2d 668, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1991). Unlike 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985,

6

the statute of limitations for claims predicated on 42 U.S.C. § 1986 originates within the statute

7

itself. Actions under this statute “must be commenced within one year after the cause of action

8

has accrued.” 42 U.S.C. § 1986; Bledsoe v. City of Stockton Police Dept, No. 2:20-cv-01654-

9

KJM-KJN PS, 2020 WL 5203438, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2020), report and recommendation

10
11

adopted, No. 2:20-cv-01654-KJM-KJN PS, 2020 WL 5847142 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020).
Plaintiff does not allege when he complained to Defendant. But if it was relatively soon

12

after the January 29, 2020 attack, then his claims are over four years old and barred by the

13

applicable statutes of limitation. Because Plaintiff does not allege when he complained to

14

Defendant and, if his claims are time barred, whether tolling applies, the Court cannot determine

15

if he states a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court thus dismisses Plaintiff’s

16

complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend.

17
18

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

19

pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted. Plaintiff will not be required to pay an initial installment fee.

20

Nevertheless, the full filing fee will still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the

21

Prison Litigation Reform Act. The movant herein is permitted to maintain this action to

22

conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of fees or costs or the giving of security therefor.

23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the

24

Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Clark County Detention Center will forward payments from the

25

account of David Holmes, Inmate No. 1210144, to the Clerk of the United States District Court,

26

District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month’s deposits (in months that the account exceeds

27

$10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk of Court is kindly

28

directed to send a copy of this order to the Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office. The Clerk of
Page 4 of 5

1

Court is also kindly directed to send a copy of this order to the attention of Chief of Inmate

2

Services for the Clark County Detention Center at 330 S. Casino Center Blvd., Las Vegas, NV

3

89101.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, even if this action is dismissed, or is otherwise

5

unsuccessful, the full filing fee will still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the

6

Prison Litigation Reform Act.

7
8
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to file Plaintiff’s
complaint (ECF No. 1-1) on the docket but shall not issue summons.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without

10

prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with leave to amend.

11

Plaintiff will have until September 26, 2024, to file an amended complaint if the noted

12

deficiencies can be corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed

13

that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) to make the amended

14

complaint complete. This is because, generally, an amended complaint supersedes the original

15

complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended complaint be complete without reference

16

to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original complaint no

17

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

18

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

19

Failure to comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of this case.

20
21

DATED: August 27, 2024

22
23
24

DANIEL J. ALBREGTS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
Page 5 of 5