State of Nevada Corporation v. Amafa

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 STATE OF NEVADA CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-02023-MMD-EJY 5 Plaintiff, 6 v. ORDER 7 BLAKE AMAFA, 8 Defendant. — 9 — 10 Pending before the Court is Blake Amafa’s Notice of Constitutional Question filed with his 11 in forma pauper application (ECF No. 1-1) and filed a second time at ECF No. 4. This twice filed 12 document is 91 pages long. In this Order, the Court exercises its inherent authority to screen this 13 submission, which is “transparently defective,” in order to “save everyone time and legal expense.” 14 Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 2003). 15 Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a “short and plain statement of the 16 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8(d)(1) states that 17 “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3) states that a complaint 18 must include “a demand for relief sought ….” A complaint having the factual elements of a cause 19 of action scattered throughout the complaint and not organized into a “short and plain statement of 20 the claim” may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a). Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 21 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). 22 Mr. Amafa brings his case to Court as a defendant. It is unclear what he seeks from this 23 Court and how the case can proceed as presented. Mr. Amafa’s submission asks seven questions 24 that he states arise under the United States Constitution. ECF Nos. 1-1, 4 at 1-2. These questions 25 are not presented as part of a factual scenario that supports a theory of recovery, let alone a legally 26 cognizable claim. What is clear is that Mr. Amafa seeks an advisory opinion that he might ultimately 27 use to challenge a proceeding in state court. “[F]ederal courts have never been empowered to 1 (citation omitted). Because this Court lacks the power to advise Mr. Amafa on the legal questions 2 raised by his submission the Court finds he has not presented a pleading that survives Fed. R. Civ. 3 P. 12 (b)(6) dismissal. 4 Despite the above, the Court does not order dismissal with prejudice. Instead, the Court 5 dismisses Mr. Amafa’s claims without prejudice providing him one opportunity to file a complaint 6 that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Amafa’s Notice of Constitutional 8 Question (ECF Nos. 1-1, 4) be DISMISSED without prejudice. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Amafa is given one opportunity to file a complaint 10 that complies with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Amafa must carefully 11 consider who he wishes to include as a defendant and then, in short plain paragraphs, allege the facts 12 supporting the violation of his federal or constitutional rights alleged. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court send Mr. Amafa the form and 14 instructions for commencing a civil complaint in federal Court. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Amafa will have through and including April 1, 2024 16 to file his complaint that complies with all applicable rules as described above and in the instructions 17 provided to him by the Court. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Amafa fails to comply with this Order, the Court 19 will recommend the action be dismissed with prejudice. 20 Dated this 29th day of February, 2024. — 21 — — 22 — ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 —