Prado v. Mutual Liberty Insurance ( 2019 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 FREDERIC CHARLES PRADO, Case No. 2:18-cv-00831-GMN-BNW 7 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 8 v. 9 MUTUAL LIBERTY INSURANCE, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Pro se plaintiff Frederic Charles Prado brings this lawsuit regarding a dispute he is having 13 regarding unpaid medical bills. Prado moves to proceed in forma pauperis. (IFP Application 14 (ECF No. 1).) Prado submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability 15 to prepay fees or costs or give security for them. Prado’s request to proceed in forma pauperis 16 therefore will be granted. The court now screens Prado’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) as required by 17 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 18 I. ANALYSIS 19 A. Screening standard 20 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 21 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable 22 claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, file to state a claim on which relief may 23 be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard 25 for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 26 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain 27 sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 1 and may only dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts 2 in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 3 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 4 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of 5 material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler 6 Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 7 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff 8 must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 9 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. 10 Unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se 11 plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s 12 deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 13 B. Screening the complaint 14 Prado alleges that he has Medicare health insurance through the United States Social 15 Security System. (Compl. (ECF No. 1-1).) He states that unspecified Medicare employees 16 informed him that certain medical bills he incurred related to a car accident that occurred in May 17 of 2016 are not Medicare’s responsibility because Prado received a financial settlement from 18 Geico Insurance and/or Liberty Mutual Insurance. (Id. at 1-2.) He further states that he was 19 informed he needs to reimburse Medicare for medical bills paid since the time of the car accident. 20 (Id. at 2-3.) According to Prado, repaying the bills will cause him financial problems. (Id. at 3.) 21 The court understands Prado to be stating that the bills should be the responsibility of Geico, 22 Liberty Mutual, or the City of Las Vegas bus system. (See id.) Prado seeks “a fine for negligent 23 activity by the insurance company as the statute of limitations runs out in 20 days for filing this 24 legal case . . . .” (Id. at 4.) 25 Even liberally construing the complaint, the court finds Prado does not state a claim 26 against any of the entities mentioned in the complaint. While Prado generally describes the 27 underlying circumstances that prompted him to file this lawsuit, he does not provide sufficient 1 defendants. Without additional factual allegations regarding the underlying dispute and the 2 various entities’ roles in the case, the court cannot evaluate whether Prado’s complaint states a 3 claim against Medicare, Geico, Liberty Mutual, or the City of Las Vegas Bus System. 4 Additionally, Prado does not include any statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction in 5 this case. The court therefore will recommend dismissal of Prado’s complaint without prejudice 6 for Prado to file an amended complaint. 7 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the document must be titled “Amended 8 Complaint.” The amended complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for 9 the court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Additionally, the amended complaint must 10 contain a short and plain statement describing the underlying case and each defendant’s 11 involvement in the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules of Civil 12 Procedure adopt a flexible pleading standard, Prado still must give each defendant fair notice of 13 Prado’s claims against it and of Prado’s entitlement to relief. 14 Additionally, Prado is advised that if he files an amended complaint, the original 15 complaint (ECF No. 1-1) no longer serves any function in this case. As such, the amended 16 complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to prior pleadings or other 17 documents. The court cannot refer to a prior pleading or other documents to make Prado’s 18 amended complaint complete. Given that the court is recommending dismissal of Prado’s 19 complaint without prejudice, the court will deny Prado’s motions for a hearing (ECF Nos. 5, 6) 20 without prejudice. 21 II. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Prado’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 23 (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without 24 prepaying fees or costs or giving security for them. 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court must detach and separately file 26 Prado’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Prado’s motions for a hearing (ECF Nos. 5, 6) are 1 IT IS RECOMMENDED that Prado’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice. 2 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Prado be given a deadline to file an amended 3 || complaint. 4| TH. NOTICE 5 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned 6 || to this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation 7 || may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being 8 || served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely 9 || objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 10 |} 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 12 DATED: September 11, 2019 . 13 Gr lea atA, 14 BRENDA WEKSLER 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28