Sun v. Johnson ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 JIANMIN SUN, Case No. 2:21-cv-02180-APG-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 6 v. 7 RACHEL L. JOHNSON, and CARRIE TEAGER, 8 Defendants. 9 10 On December 10, 2021, Defendant Rachel L. Johnson, filed an incomplete Application to 11 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), attached to which is a Notice of Removal, a Complaint filed in 12 the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Dupage County, Illinois, a Certificate of Service, and a Civil Cover 13 Sheet. ECF Nos. 1–1-4. 14 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 15 Defendant’s IFP application is incomplete. Defendant failed to fill in the blanks or answer 16 any questions on the form. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and the U.S. District Court for the 17 District of Nevada Local Rule LSR 1-1, “[a]ny person who is unable to prepay the fees in a civil 18 case may apply to the court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The application must be made 19 on the form provided by the court and must include a financial affidavit disclosing the applicant’s 20 income, assets, expenses, and liabilities.” Because Defendant’s IFP application is incomplete, her 21 request to proceed without prepaying fees is denied without prejudice. 22 II. Screening the Complaint 23 As stated above, Defendant’s IFP application was accompanied by a Notice of Removal 24 (ECF No. 1-1), a Complaint filed in Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Dupage County, Illinois (ECF No. 25 1-2), a Certificate of Service (ECF No. 1-3), and a Civil Cover Sheet (ECF No. 1-4). Defendant fails 26 to establish this Court has subject matter or personal jurisdiction over the parties. Subject matter 27 jurisdiction arises from a federal question or diversity of the parties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. 1 jurisdiction comports with due process.” Southport Lane Equity II, LLC v. Downey, 177 F. Supp. 2 3d 1286, 1290 (D. Nev. 2016) citing Greenspun v. Del E. Webb Corp., 634 F.2d 1204, 1207 (9th 3 Cir. 1980). “When no federal statute governs personal jurisdiction, a federal court applies the law 4 of the forum state.” Id. citing Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). Where a 5 state, such as Nevada, has a “long-arm” statute providing “jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted 6 by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a court need only address federal due 7 process standards.” Id. citing Arbella Mut. Ins. Co. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 509, 8 134 P.3d 710, 712 (2006) (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.065); Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1015. Under 9 these standards, a defendant must generally have “certain minimum contacts” with the forum state 10 before personal jurisdiction will be established. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 11 (1945). 12 Personal jurisdiction may be established in one of two ways: “general jurisdiction and 13 specific jurisdiction.” Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1016; see also Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, 14 S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 413–414 (1984). In this case, Defendant pleads no facts in support of 15 Nevada’s exercise of personal jurisdiction under either theory. ECF No. 1-2. In fact, Defendant 16 fails to make any claims regarding any party’s relationship with the State of Nevada. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s application to proceed in forma 18 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED without prejudice. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send Defendant the approved form 20 application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner, as well as the document entitled 21 information and instructions for filing an in forma pauperis application. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before January 14, 2022, Defendant shall either: 23 (1) file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915(a) and LSR 1-1; or (2) pay the full $402 fee for filing a civil action (which includes the $350 25 filing fee and the $52 administrative fee). 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant is directed to show cause, in writing, no later 27 than January 14, 2022, why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to timely comply with the terms of this Order will 2 result in a recommendation to dismiss this action without prejudice. 3 4 Dated this 16th day of December, 2021. 5 6 7 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27