Morgan v. All My Sons

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA [5] 6 JACOB MORGAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-00739-CDS-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 8 v. 9 ALL MY SONS, 10 Defendant(s). 11 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested authority pursuant to [12] 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. 13 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 14 Plaintiff filed an affidavit required by § 1915(a). Docket No. 1. Plaintiff has shown an 15 inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the application to 16 proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 1) will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a). The 17 Clerk’s Office is further INSTRUCTED to file the complaint on the docket. 18 II. Screening the Complaint 19 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 20 complaint pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the 21 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 22 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). 23 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 24 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 25 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 26 F.3d 1103 , 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 27 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint 28 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is 1 essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719 , 723 2 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim 3 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 4 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, 5 it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 6 of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 , 7 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the 8 complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 . 9 Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do 10 not suffice. Id. at 678 . Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from 11 conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 . 12 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 13 by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 , 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 14 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 15 To comply with Rule 8, a complaint must set forth coherently who is being sued, for what 16 relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 17 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1995). Although the Court construes complaints drafted by pro se litigants 18 liberally, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 , 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010), they still must comply with the 19 basic requirements of Rule 8, see, e.g., Montgomery v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 2014 20 WL 3724213 , at *3 n.3 (D. Nev. July 28, 2014). 21 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with these requirements. The factual recitation is, in 22 its entirety, an allegation of “retaliation – never given a chance to work.” Docket No. 1-1 at 4. 23 One might guess that Plaintiff is intending to bring a federal cause of action for employment 24 retaliation, but the pleading must clearly identify the claim being brought.1 Moreover, the Court [25] 26 1 The complaint indicates that diversity jurisdiction is invoked, but Plaintiff and Defendant both appear to be from Nevada. See Docket No. 1-1 at 3. Given Plaintiff’s pro se status, it appears 27 that the complaint may instead be invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction by raising a federal claim for employment retaliation. As noted above, the pleadings moving forward must 28 make clear what claim it is that Plaintiff is bringing. 1 has not been provided with the factual allegations on which such a claim is being brought, 2 including the basic contours of Plaintiff’s case. 3 Accordingly, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 or state a claim on which relief 4 may be granted. Because the Court cannot say that amendment would be futile, Plaintiff is 5 afforded an opportunity to file an amended complaint if the deficiencies identified above can be 6 corrected. 7 III. Conclusion 8 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 1) is GRANTED. 10 Plaintiff shall not be required to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain 11 this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or 12 costs or the giving of a security therefor. This order granting leave to proceed in forma 13 pauperis shall not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government 14 expense. 15 2. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to file Plaintiff’s complaint on the docket. 16 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until 17 May 10, 2024, to file an amended complaint, if the noted deficiencies can be corrected. 18 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot 19 refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) in order to make the amended 20 complaint complete. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint 21 supersedes the original complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended 22 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff 23 files an amended complaint, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the 24 case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and 25 the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. [28] 1 4. Failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline set above will result in the 2 recommended dismissal of this case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: April 18, 2024 Nancy J. Koppe. 6 United States Magistrate Judge