Samia v. Hudson News ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Allan D. Samia, Case No. 2:23-cv-01384-RFB-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Brandon Levell, Hudson News, and Richard 9 Marquez, 10 Defendants. 11 12 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested 13 authority to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff also submitted a complaint. (ECF 14 No. 1-1). Because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s application is complete, it grants his application 15 to proceed in forma pauperis. However, because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does 16 not properly assert sufficient facts, it dismisses his complaint with leave to amend. 17 I. In forma pauperis application. 18 Plaintiff filed the affidavit required by § 1915(a). (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff has shown an 19 inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed 20 in forma pauperis will be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court will now review 21 Plaintiff’s complaint. 22 II. Screening the complaint. 23 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 24 complaint under § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is 25 legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 27 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend 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 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a 4 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 5 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 6 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of 7 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. 8 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual 9 allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the 10 elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. 11 Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations 12 contained in the complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 13 556 U.S. at 679. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory 14 allegations, do not suffice. Id. at 678. Where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the 15 line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 16 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings 17 drafted by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 18 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 19 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by 20 the Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004). Under 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the 22 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Cases “arise under” federal law either when 23 federal law creates the cause of action or where the vindication of a right under state law 24 necessarily turns on the construction of federal law. Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 25 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002). Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists is based on the 26 “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a 27 federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 1 district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in 2 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of 3 different states.” Generally speaking, diversity jurisdiction exists only where there is “complete 4 diversity” among the parties; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each 5 of the defendants. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). 6 A. The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. 7 Plaintiff’s complaint contains no allegations. (ECF No. 1-1 at 1). Plaintiff attaches right 8 to sue letters from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, however these do not 9 provide any background about the facts of his case. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2-3). As a result, Plaintiff’s 10 complaint does not provide enough factual detail to constitute a claim on which relief can be 11 granted. The Court thus dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and with leave to 12 amend. 13 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 15 pauperis (ECF No. 7) is granted. Plaintiff shall not be required to pre-pay the filing fee. 16 Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of 17 any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. This order granting leave to 18 proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at 19 government expense. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to file Plaintiff’s 21 complaint (ECF No. 1-1) on the docket but shall not issue summons. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without 23 prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with leave to amend. 24 Plaintiff will have until March 28, 2024 to file an amended complaint if the noted deficiencies 25 can be corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the Court 26 cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) to make the amended complaint 27 complete. This is because, generally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 1 prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original complaint no longer 2 serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, 3 each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Failure to 4 comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of this case. 5 6 DATED: February 27, 2024 7 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27