Douglas v. Autovest LLC ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 Sean Edward Douglas, Case No. 2:21-cv-01576-APG-BNW 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 Autovest LLC, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Plaintiff Sean Edward Douglas has filed a complaint and submitted a request to proceed in 11 forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. 12 As discussed in more detail below, the Court will grant his request to proceed in forma 13 pauperis but dismiss the complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. 14 I. Background 15 First, while the Court notes that Plaintiff filed the form required in state court, the Court 16 determines it has all the information that it needs to make a determination regarding eligibility. 17 The Court finds that Plaintiff is not able to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application 18 to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted. 19 II. Screening Order 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 claims 22 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 23 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, 668 26 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 27 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 1 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 2 his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 3 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 Plaintiff sues multiple defendants: Autovest LLC, Whitney Wilcher, Lippman Recupero 14 PLLC, and Oliva Gamble & Lawgistic Partners. ECF No. 1-1. While Plaintiff provides general 15 statements about how he has been wronged (social security number, tax ID number, address, etc. 16 being made public), he fails to detail exactly why or how each defendant violated the law. In 17 addition, he does not break his complaint into counts or claims against specific defendants. Id. 18 Even liberally construing Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court is unable to determine exactly 19 what claims Plaintiff is attempting to allege against which defendants and cannot evaluate 20 whether Plaintiff states any claims for relief. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s 21 complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. To help Plaintiff file a properly formatted 22 complaint, the Court now advises Plaintiff of the following requirements under the Federal Rules 23 of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is also advised that failure to comply with these rules when drafting 24 and filing his amended complaint may result in this action being dismissed. 25 First, Plaintiff is advised that he must specify which claims he is alleging against which 26 defendants. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, 27 Plaintiff still must give defendants fair notice of each of the claims he is alleging against each 1 the approximate dates of their involvement. Put another way, Plaintiff should tell the Court, in 2 plain language, what each defendant did to him and when. “While legal conclusions can provide 3 the framework of a complaint, they must be supported with factual allegations.” Ashcroft, 556 4 U.S. at 679. 5 Second, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must 6 contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 8(d)(1). “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as 9 practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). “[E]ach claim founded on a 10 separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.” Id. 11 Third, Plaintiff may not raise multiple unrelated claims in a single lawsuit. The Federal 12 Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a litigant to raise unrelated claims involving different 13 defendants in a single action. A basic lawsuit is a single claim against a single defendant. But 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple claims to the lawsuit 15 when those claims are against the same defendant. And Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) 16 allows a plaintiff to add multiple parties to a lawsuit where the right to relief arises out of the 17 “same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 20(a)(2)(A). “However, unrelated claims that involve different defendants must be brought in 19 separate lawsuits.” Bryant v. Romero, No. 1:12-CV-02074-DLB PC, 2013 WL 5923108, at *2 20 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2013) (citing George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)). This rule is 21 intended to avoid confusion, which arises out of bloated lawsuits.1 22 Lastly, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete in and of itself. If Plaintiff 23 chooses to file an amended complaint, he is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the 24 original complaint and, thus, the amended complaint must be complete by itself. See Hal Roach 25 Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that 26 “[t]he fact that a party was named in the original complaint is irrelevant; an amended pleading 27 1 1 || supersedes the original”); see also Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) 2 || Cholding that for claims dismissed with prejudice, a plaintiff is not required to reallege such 3 || claims in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal). Plaintiff's amended 4 || complaint must contain all claims, defendants, and factual allegations that Plaintiff wishes to 5 || pursue in this lawsuit. Moreover, Plaintiff must file his amended complaint on this Court’s 6 || approved form, which the Clerk of Court will send to Plaintiff. 7 || If. Conclusion and Order 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis 9 || (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is DISMISSED 11 || without prejudice and with leave to amend. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to mail Plaintiff 13 || acopy of the non-prisoner, pro se form complaint. 14 15 DATED: December 16, 2021. 16 a Les Wr pet, BRENDA WEKSLER 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28