Greene et al v. Smith et al

Filing 3

ORDER IFP Application 1 is denied as moot. Clerk shall file complaint. Complaint is dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice. Plaintiffs shall not file any further documents in this action and are directed to re-file case when they ha ve obtained an attorney. Plaintiffs may file their own lawsuits by filing individual IFP applications and individual complaints. Clerk shall enter judgment. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/9/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8

***
DELBERT M. GREENE et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10
11
12

Case No. 3:15-cv-00300-MMD-WGC
SCREENING ORDER

v.
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

I.

DISCUSSION

16

Forty-three pro se prisoners in the custody of the Nevada Department of

17

Corrections (“NDOC”) have submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

18

1983 in an attempt to open a class action suit. (Dkt. no. 1-1 at 1.) Only one plaintiff,

19

Delbert M. Greene, has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. no. 1.)

20

The complaint alleges extortion, laundering, embezzlement, and racketeering against

21

Defendants NDOC and James Cox. (Dkt. no. 1-1 at 1-3.)

22

Pro se litigants have the right to plead and conduct their own cases personally.

23

See 28 U.S.C. § 1654. However, pro se litigants have no authority to represent anyone

24

other than themselves. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.1 (9th Cir.

25

1995); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987).

26

The Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice. Based on the structure of

27

the complaint and the filing of the application to proceed in forma pauperis, it appears

28

that Plaintiff Greene is attempting to lead this class action lawsuit. However, Plaintiff

1

Greene has no authority to represent these other litigants. As such, the Court dismisses

2

this case without prejudice to give the litigants an opportunity to re-file this case when

3

they have found an attorney who will represent them as a class and initiate the class

4

action lawsuit on their behalf. Alternatively, each pro se plaintiff may initiate their own

5

lawsuit by filing an individual application to proceed in forma pauperis and individual

6

complaint with the Clerk’s Office.

7

II.

For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the application to proceed in forma

8
9

pauperis (dkt. no.1) is denied as moot.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court shall file the complaint (dkt. no. 1-

10
11
12
13

CONCLUSION

1).
It is further ordered that the complaint is dismissed in its entirety, without
prejudice.

14

It is further ordered that plaintiffs shall not file any further documents in this

15

action. Plaintiffs are directed to re-file this case when they have obtained an attorney to

16

represent them in a class action lawsuit. Alternatively, plaintiffs may file their own

17

lawsuits with the Clerk’s Office by filing individual applications to proceed in forma

18

pauperis and individual complaints.

19
20
21

It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
DATED THIS 9th day of June 2015.

22
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2