Brower v. State of Alaska ( 2023 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Nash Brower, Case No. 2:23-cv-00330-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 State of Alaska; Bruce Lord; Schu Weidshold; 9 Child Support; Dany Crosby, 10 Defendants. 11 12 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma 13 pauperis. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff has submitted an amended complaint. (ECF No. 6). Because 14 the Court finds that Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 15 granted, it dismisses his amended complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. 16 I. Legal standard. 17 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 18 complaint under § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is 19 legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 20 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 21 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend 22 the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 23 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 24 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 25 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a 26 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 27 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 1 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. 2 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual 3 allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the 4 elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. 5 Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations 6 contained in the complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 7 556 U.S. at 679. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory 8 allegations, do not suffice. Id. at 678. Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not 9 crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 10 U.S. at 570. Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal 11 pleadings drafted by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding 12 that liberal construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 13 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by 14 the Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004). Under 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the 16 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Cases “arise under” federal law either when 17 federal law creates the cause of action or where the vindication of a right under state law 18 necessarily turns on the construction of federal law. Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 19 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002). Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists is based on the 20 “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a 21 federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 22 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), federal 23 district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in 24 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of 25 different states.” Generally speaking, diversity jurisdiction exists only where there is “complete 26 diversity” among the parties; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each 27 of the defendants. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). 1 II. Discussion. 2 Plaintiff’s amended complaint is in a narrative format that does not identify specific 3 defendants, the claims he is bringing, which claims he is bringing against which defendants, the 4 basis for jurisdiction, or the relief he seeks. It appears that Plaintiff may still be suing the same 5 defendants (the State of Alaska, Judge Dany Crosby, Child Support Alaska, and Bruce Lord) but 6 the Court must reference Plaintiff’s previous complaint to draw this conclusion. And the Court 7 cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) to make the amended complaint 8 complete. The Court thus dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and with leave to 9 amend. Should Plaintiff wish to file an amended complaint, the Court directs Plaintiff to the pro 10 se litigant resources on its website and in particular, the self-help portal, which provides a step- 11 by-step checklist for filing a federal lawsuit.1 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended complaint (ECF No. 6) is dismissed 13 without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with leave to 14 amend. Plaintiff will have until January 2, 2024 to file an amended complaint if the noted 15 deficiencies can be corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed 16 that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) to make the amended 17 complaint complete. This is because, generally, an amended complaint supersedes the original 18 complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended complaint be complete without reference 19 to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original complaint no 20 longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 21 complaint, each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 22 Failure to comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of this case. 23 DATED: December 1, 2023 24 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 1 Plaintiff may access this portal by visiting nvd.uscourts.gov and clicking on the red button that