Miller v. NV Energy ( 2023 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Duhjuan L. Miller, Case No. 2:23-cv-00584-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 NV Energy and Mike Cole, 9 Defendants. 10 11 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma 12 pauperis. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff also submitted an amended complaint. (ECF No. 9). Because 13 the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does not properly assert sufficient facts, it dismisses his 14 complaint with leave to amend. 15 I. Legal standard. 16 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 17 complaint under § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is 18 legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 19 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 20 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend 21 the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 22 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 23 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 24 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a 25 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 26 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 27 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of 1 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual 2 allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the 3 elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. 4 Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations 5 contained in the complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 6 556 U.S. at 679. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory 7 allegations, do not suffice. Id. at 678. Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not 8 crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 9 U.S. at 570. Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal 10 pleadings drafted by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding 11 that liberal construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 12 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by 13 the Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004). Under 28 U.S.C. 14 § 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the 15 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Cases “arise under” federal law either when 16 federal law creates the cause of action or where the vindication of a right under state law 17 necessarily turns on the construction of federal law. Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 18 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002). Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists is based on the 19 “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a 20 federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 21 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), federal 22 district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in 23 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of 24 different states.” Generally speaking, diversity jurisdiction exists only where there is “complete 25 diversity” among the parties; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each 26 of the defendants. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). 27 1 || IL. Discussion. 2 Plaintiff alleges that NV Energy and its Chief Financial Officer Mike Cole have failed to 3 || respond to documents that Plaintiff sent them. Plaintiff does not otherwise explain why this 4 || Court has jurisdiction over his complaint, identify the causes of action he brings against these 5 || Defendants, or explain how Defendants are civilly liable for failing to respond to Plaintiffs 6 || documents. The Court thus dismisses Plaintiff’s amended complaint without prejudice and with 7 || leave to amend. 8 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended complaint (ECF No. 9) is dismissed 10 || without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with leave to 11 || amend. Plaintiff will have until January 4, 2024 to file an amended complaint if the noted 12 || deficiencies can be corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed 13 || that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) to make the amended 14 || complaint complete. This is because, generally, an amended complaint supersedes the original 15 || complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended complaint be complete without reference 16 || to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original complaint no 17 || longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 18 || complaint, each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 19 || Failure to comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of this case. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to mail Plaintiff 21 || acopy of this order. 22 23 DATED: December 5, 2023 24 \ 2 C 0 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS j 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28