Julian J. Alexander v. Metro Police Department

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA [5] 6 Julian J. Alexander, Case No. 2:25-cv-01980-APG-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v. [Docket No. 5] 9 Metro Police Department, 10 Defendant(s). 11 On October 17, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. Docket No. 3. The Court 12 dismissed the complaint because it failed to comply with Rule 8 of the federal Rules of Civil 13 Procedure and it was not signed as is required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 14 Docket No. 3 at 2. The Court afforded leave to amend. See id. Plaintiff appears to have now 15 filed an amended complaint. 16 I. Screening the Complaint 17 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 18 complaint pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the 19 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 20 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). 21 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 22 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 23 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 24 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 25 A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing 26 that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 27 U.S. 544 , 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands 28 “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” 1 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). 2 Litigants are required to provide a short, plain statement of their claims setting forth coherently 3 who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery, 4 McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 , 1178 (9th Cir. 1996). Although the pleadings of pro se litigants 5 are construed liberally, they must still comply with this requirement. E.g., Montgomery v. Las 6 Vegas Metro. Police Dept., 2014 WL 3724213 , at *3 n.3 (D. Nev. July 28, 2014). When litigants 7 have not complied with the dictates of Rule 8(a), courts may dismiss the complaint sua sponte. 8 See, e.g., Apothio, LLC v. Kern Cnty., 599 F. Supp. 3d 983 , 1000 (E.D. Cal. 2022) (collecting 9 cases). 10 Plaintiff’s latest filing fails to comply with Rule 8. Plaintiff appears to have refiled his 11 initial complaint with an exhibit of a complaint with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 12 Department. See Docket No. 5. A complaint must be complete in and of itself, e.g., Local Rule 13 15-1(a), and the Court cannot piece together different pleadings to create a new one, Varner v. 14 Guliani, 2024 WL 1701920 , at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 19, 2024) (citing Fletcher v. Dreesen, 2023 WL 15 8933590, at *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 27, 2023)). Moreover, usage of the police complaint form as a proxy 16 for a complaint in court raises a number of problems, including most basically that the police form 17 does not identify with particularity who the defendant is that is being sued (or the defendants that 18 are being sued).1 19 Accordingly, the Court dismisses the most recent filing. The Court will again provide leave 20 to amend. The amended complaint must comply with Rule 8, including alleging sufficient factual 21 detail showing an entitlement to relief and elucidating the alleged circumstances, the theory of the 22 claims, the specific parties named as defendants, and the relief sought. The complaint must also 23 be signed. [24] 1 The Court also notes that, on its merits, the instant filing does not include sufficient 25 allegations to state a claim. The only expressly identified defendant in the papers is the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. See Docket No. 5 at 5. To state a claim against a local police 26 department, a complaint must allege not only a constitutional violation by those employed by the police department, but also that the violation was the result of a policy or custom or is otherwise 27 properly attributable to the municipality. See, e.g., Boyd v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dept., 2025 WL 3014275 , at *1-2 (D. Nev. Oct. 27, 2025) (discussing Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv. of City of 28 N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). Such allegations are absent here. ] In light of the above, the Court ORDERS as follows: 2 1. Plaintiffs filing (Docket No. 5) is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff will 3 have until January 13, 2026, to file a proper amended complaint, if the noted 4 deficiencies can be corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is 5 informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (1.e., the original complaint) in 6 order to make the amended complaint complete. This is because, as a general rule, an 7 amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that 8 an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 9 Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original complaint no longer serves 10 any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 11 complaint, each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently 12 alleged. 13 2. Failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline set above will result in the 14 recommended dismissal of this case. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: December 23, 2025 Nancy J. Koppe 18 United States Magistrate Judge