Jefferson v. Kramer ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 AYANA JEFFERSON, Case No. 2:24-cv-00316-RFB-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 JORDAN KRAMER, SARA BROO, MELANIE AFORMSKY, ROSHANDA 8 TILLMAN, ROBERT TEUTON, 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and 12 Complaint against defendants the Court reasonably interprets as caseworkers for the Division of 13 Child and Family Services. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. Plaintiff’s IFP application is complete and is granted. 14 Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to establish a cause of action that can be adjudicated in federal court. 15 I. Screening the Complaint. 16 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 17 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 18 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted 19 or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 20 Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for failure to state 21 a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 22 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, 23 accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 24 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only dismiss them “if it 25 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would 26 entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting id.). 27 1 II. Plaintiff’s Complaint Fails to State a Cognizable Claim. 2 Plaintiff alleges a series of facts relating to involvement of the Division of Child and Family 3 Services and certain Social Workers with whom she apparently interacted regarding her child. 4 However, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim for relief. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 5 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or 6 laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person 7 acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). General allegations of 8 wrongdoing in the absence of an identified claim does not satisfy these requirements. Id. Because 9 § 1983 “is not itself a source of substantive rights,” but merely provides “a method for vindicating 10 federal rights elsewhere conferred,” the first step is to identify the specific constitutional right 11 allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (internal quotations omitted). 12 Further, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to plead not only 13 sufficient facts to give a defendant fair notice of the claims against him, but also the legal grounds 14 upon which it rests. Yamaguchi v. United States Department of the Air Force, 109 F.3d 1475, 1481 15 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). “[A] pleading may not simply allege a wrong has been committed 16 and demand relief.” Sherrell v. Bank of Am., N.A., Case No. CV F 11-1785-LJO (JLT), 2011 WL 17 6749765, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2011). 18 In this case, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to identify a cause of action and, while the allegations 19 are sufficiently understood, the Court cannot discern what claim or claims it is Plaintiff seeks to 20 assert. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are 21 construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim 22 for relief). The pleading standard established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 “does not require 23 detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully- 24 harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation omitted). Plaintiff says the 25 Division of Child and Family Services and individual Social Workers did her wrong, but fails to 26 identify a single claim against Defendants as required by Rule 8. Benitez v. Schumacher, Case No. 27 2:20-CV-00396-FMO-SHK, 2020 WL 6526352, at *12 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2020). Plaintiff’s 1 III. Order 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in formal 3 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has one additional opportunity to replead her 5 claims. The pleading must be titled “First Amended Complaint” and must include not only facts, 6 but the causes of action—the specific constitutional rights or identification of federal laws—violated 7 by each Defendant. Plaintiff must tie the alleged action to the alleged violation of law. 8 Plaintiff is advised that if she files a first amended complaint, the original Complaint (ECF 9 No. 1-1) no longer serves any function in this case. The judge screening the first amended complaint 10 cannot refer to the original Complaint or any allegation therein when determining if Plaintiff 11 sufficiently states a claim. As such, the first amended complaint must be complete in and of itself 12 without reference to prior pleadings or other documents. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses to file a first amended complaint, the 14 first amended complaint be filed no later than March 18, 2024. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to comply with the terms of this Order the 16 Court will recommend Plaintiff’s action be dismissed in its entirety, but without prejudice. 17 Dated this 15th day of February, 2024. 18 19 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27