Warren v. The City of Henderson Nevada ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5 ALLANNA WARREN, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01503-GMN-NJK 6 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 7 THE CITY OF HENDERSON NEVADA, et [Docket Nos. 1, 30] 8 al., 9 Defendants. 10 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested 11 authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 30. Plaintiff 12 also submitted a complaint. Docket No. 1-1. 1 13 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 14 Plaintiff filed the affidavit required by § 1915(a). Docket No. 30. Plaintiff has shown an 15 inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed 16 in forma pauperis will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Clerk’s Office is further 17 INSTRUCTED to file the complaint on the docket. The Court will now review Plaintiff’s 18 complaint. 19 II. Screening the Complaint 20 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 21 complaint pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the 22 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 23 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 24 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 25 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 26 27 1 The Court construes pro se filings liberally. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 28 (9th Cir. 2013). 1 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 2 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 3 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain “a short 4 and plain statement” of the plaintiff’s claims. The complaint must set forth coherently who is 5 being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery. See, e.g., 6 McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1995). Where claims are brought against multiple 7 defendants, it is important that the complaint clearly allege which defendants are liable for which 8 wrongs. See id. Similarly, where multiple claims are brought, the complaint should make clear 9 which factual allegations purport to give rise to each of the various causes of action. See id. While 10 allegations of a pro se plaintiff are held to less stringent standards, the complaint must still comply 11 with Rule 8. Montgomery v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dept., 2014 WL 3724213, at *3 n.3 (D. 12 Nev. July 28, 2014). 13 Plaintiff’s complaint is 26 pages long and addresses numerous actors, including several 14 who are not formally named as defendants.2 Docket No. 1-1. Further, the complaint covers a 15 range of alleged conduct including Plaintiff’s detention in Washoe County, Nevada, employment 16 in Las Vegas, Nevada, and incidents in Henderson, Nevada. The complaint fails to provide a clear 17 connection between the persons identified and their allegedly unlawful conduct. Moreover, a 18 number of the named Defendants are identified one time in the factual allegations without any 19 detail as to how they are tied to the particular causes of action.3 Since Plaintiff fails to comply 20 21 22 2 The complaint at times references entities not named as defendants and events that do not appear to involve (in any direct way) the named defendants. For example, the complaint identifies 23 the City of Sparks, Sparks Police Department, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Washoe County Jail in allegations surrounding Plaintiff’s detention in Northern Nevada and 24 subsequent employment in Las Vegas, Nevada. Docket No. 1-1 at 1-4. Plaintiff does not appear to bring claims against those entities in this case and Plaintiff initiated a separate, unrelated case 25 naming them as defendants. See Warren v. Sparks Police Department, et al., 2:23-cv-00065- GMN-DJA. 26 3 For example, Plaintiff names Defendants Tim Buchanan, Gina Waters, Stephanie 27 Nickson, and Lisa Kelso in the factual allegations of her complaint but fails to connect those specific defendants to her causes of action. Accordingly, these Defendants are DISMISSED 28 without prejudice. 1} with Rule 8, the Court dismisses her complaint with leave to amend. Any future complaint must comply with Rule 8. 3 Ill. Conclusion 4 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Docket No. 30. 6 Plaintiff's identical application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. 7 Docket No. 1. Plaintiff is not required to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is permitted to 8 maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any 9 additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. This order granting leave 10 to proceed in forma pauperis does not extend to the issuance and/or service of 11 subpoenas at government expense. 12 2. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to file Plaintiffs complaint on the docket. 13 3. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until April 22, 14 2024, to file an amended complaint, if the noted deficiencies can be corrected. If 15 Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot 16 refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) in order to make the amended 17 complaint complete. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint 18 supersedes the original complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended 19 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff 20 files an amended complaint, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the 21 case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and 22 the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 23 4. Failure to comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of this 24 case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: February 23, 2024 Zo 27 ``. Nancy J. Koppé 28 United States KN agistrate Judge