Jasso-Martinez v. Lara

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 CLODUALDO JASSO-MARTINEZ, Case No. 3:24-CV-00351-ART-CLB 5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE1 6 v. [ECF Nos. 1, 4, 5] 7 MARIA ELENA RODRIGUEZ LARA, et. al., [8] Defendants. [10] Before the Court is Plaintiff Clodualdo Jasso-Martinez (“Jasso-Martinez”), [11] applications to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 1, 4), his pro se civil rights complaint [12] (ECF No. 1-1), and his motion to proceed, (ECF No. 5). For the reasons stated below, the [13] Court recommends that Jasso-Martinez’s in forma pauperis applications, (ECF Nos. 1, [14] 4), be granted, his complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), be dismissed, with prejudice, and his motion [15] to proceed, (ECF No. 5), be denied as moot. [16] I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION [17] A person may be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if the [18] person “submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] [19] possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefore. [20] Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant’s belief [21] that the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 22 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (stating 28 U.S.C. § 1915 applies to all actions filed [23] IFP, not just prisoner actions). [24] The Local Rules of Practice for the District of Nevada provide: “Any person who is [25] unable to prepay the fees in a civil case may apply to the court for authority to proceed [26] 27 1 This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Anne R. Traum, United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate 1 [IFP]. The application must be made on the form provided by the court and must include 2 a financial affidavit disclosing the applicant’s income, assets, expenses, and liabilities.” 3 LSR 1-1. 4 “[T]he supporting affidavit [must] state the facts as to [the] affiant’s poverty with 5 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” U.S. v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th 6 Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A litigant need not “be absolutely 7 destitute to enjoy the benefits of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., [8] 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 9 A review of the applications to proceed IFP reveals Jasso-Martinez cannot pay the 10 filing fee; therefore, the Court recommends that the applications, (ECF Nos. 1, 4), be 11 granted. 12 II. SCREENING STANDARD 13 Prior to ordering service on any defendant, the court is required to screen an in 14 forma pauperis complaint to determine whether dismissal is appropriate under certain 15 circumstances. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126 (noting the in forma pauperis statute at 28 16 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2) requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint for 17 the enumerated reasons). Such screening is required before a litigation proceeding in 18 forma pauperis may proceed to serve a pleading. Glick v. Edwards, 803 F.3d 505 , 507 19 (9th Cir. 2015). 20 “[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that – (A) the 21 allegations of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal – (i) is frivolous or malicious; 22 (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief 23 against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(A), (B)(i)- 24 (iii). 25 Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 26 granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and 28 U.S.C. § 27 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks that language. When reviewing the adequacy of a complaint under 1 e.g., Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The standard for 2 determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 3 under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 4 standard for failure to state a claim.”). Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling 5 on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of America, 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 6 2000) (citation omitted). 7 The court must accept as true the allegations, construe the pleadings in the light 8 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. 9 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). Allegations in pro se complaints 10 are “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]” Hughes 11 v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). 12 A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a 13 cause of actions,” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief 14 above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 15 “The pleading must contain something more. . . than. . . a statement of facts that merely 16 creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id. (citation and quotation 17 marks omitted). At a minimum, a plaintiff should include “enough facts to state a claim to 18 relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570 ; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 , 678 19 (2009). 20 A dismissal should not be without leave to amend unless it is clear from the face 21 of the complaint the action is frivolous and could not be amended to state a federal claim, 22 or the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See Cato v. United 23 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th 24 Cir. 1990). 25 III. SCREENING OF COMPLAINT 26 In his complaint, Jasso-Martinez sues Defendants Maria Elena Rodriguez Lara, 27 Martha Lucero Rodrigez Lara, Lois Fernando Rodrigez Lara, and Tamatha Schreiner, for 1 (See ECF No. 1-1 at 3-4.) Jasso-Martinez does not specify the basis for this Court’s 2 jurisdiction or the relief he seeks. 3 Jasso-Martinez’s complaint is rambling, nonsensical, and filled with incomplete 4 sentences. Dismissal on those grounds alone is appropriate. Federal Rule of Civil 5 Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the 6 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice 7 of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 8 (quotation and alteration omitted). It must also include “a demand for the relief sought. . . 9 .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3). Here, Jasso-Martinez’s largely incomprehensible narrative 10 makes it nearly impossible for the Court to identify the factual or legal basis for his claims 11 or the nature of his requested relief. Jasso-Martinez states no claim upon which relief may 12 be granted, and given the vague nature of the allegations, amendment would be futile. 13 See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1106 . 14 Notwithstanding the above, this Court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this 15 case—it is well recognized that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to resolve domestic 16 relations disputes involving child custody. See Ankenbrant v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 , 703 17 (1992) (domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction divests federal courts of the 18 power to issue child custody decrees); see also Peterson v. Babbitt, 708 F.2d 465 , 466 19 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (“[F]ederal courts have uniformly held that they should not 20 adjudicate cases involving domestic relations, including the ‘custody of minors and a 21 fortiori, rights of visitation.’”). The subject matter of domestic relations and particularly 22 child custody problems is generally considered a state law matter. Buechold v. Ortiz, 401 23 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 1968). “The strong state interest in domestic relations matters, the 24 superior competence of state courts in settling family disputes because regulation and 25 supervision of domestic relations within their borders is entrusted to the states, and the 26 possibility of incompatible federal and state court decrees in cases of continuing judicial 27 supervision by the state makes federal abstention in these cases appropriate.” Peterson, 1 For all the above reasons, the Court recommends the complaint be dismissed, with 2 prejudice, as amendment would be futile. In light of this recommendation, the Court also 3 recommends that Jasso-Martinez’s motion to proceed, (ECF No. 5), be denied as moot. 4 IV. CONCLUSION 5 For good cause appearing and for the reasons stated above, the Court 6 recommends that Jasso-Martinez’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 7 1, 4), be granted, his complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), be dismissed, with prejudice, as 8 amendment would be futile, and his motion to proceed, (ECF No. 5), be denied as moot. 9 The parties are advised: 10 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c) and Rule IB 3-2 of the Local Rules of 11 Practice, the parties may file specific written objections to this Report and 12 Recommendation within fourteen days of receipt. These objections should be entitled 13 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” and should be 14 accompanied by points and authorities for consideration by the District Court. 15 2. This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order and any 16 notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the 17 District Court’s judgment. 18 V. RECOMMENDATION 19 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Jasso-Martinez’s applications to 20 proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF Nos. 1, 4), be GRANTED; 21 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk FILE the complaint, (ECF No. 122 1); 23 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Jasso-Martinez’s complaint, (ECF No. 124 1), be DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE; 25 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Jasso-Martinez’s motion to proceed, (ECF 26 No. 5), be DENIED as moot; and, 27 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be CLOSED, and that judgment be entered accordingly. 3 DATED: August 21, 2024 | ‘ 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [28] er