Garlin v. Caron ( 2023 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 Brian Garlin, Case No. 2:23-cv-02005-GMN-BNW 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 William J. Caron, 8 Defendant. 9 10 Plaintiff brings this lawsuit and moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). See ECF 11 No. 1. Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to 12 prepay fees or costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the Court will grant his request to 13 proceed in forma pauperis. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 1-2. 14 I. Analysis 15 A. Screening standard 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 19 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard 21 for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 22 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 23 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 24 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 25 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 26 his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 27 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 1 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of 2 material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler 3 Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 4 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff 5 must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 6 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. 7 Unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se 8 plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s 9 deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 10 B. Screening the Complaint 11 Plaintiff’s complaint contains very few factual allegations. See ECF No. 1-1. He alleges 12 he was told he can no longer drive and is not eligible for HUD Veteran Affairs Supportive 13 Housing. He also explains that if he could drive for Uber, he would be able to make ends meet. 14 But it is not clear what his claim is or against whom. Even liberally construing Plaintiff’s 15 complaint, it does not state sufficient factual allegations about the underlying dispute and the 16 defendant’s role in the matter to state a claim. 17 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the document must be titled “Amended 18 Complaint.” The amended complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for 19 the Court’s jurisdiction. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8(A)(1). Additionally, the amended complaint must 20 contain a short and plain statement describing the underlying case and the defendants’ 21 involvement in the case. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8(A)(2). Although the Federal Rules of Civil 22 Procedure adopt a flexible pleading standard, Plaintiff still must give each defendant fair notice of 23 his claims against it and of Plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. 24 Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that if he files an amended complaint, the original 25 complaint (ECF No. 1-1) no longer serves any function in this case. As such, the amended 26 complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to prior pleadings or other 27 documents. The Court cannot refer to a prior pleading or other documents to make Plaintiff’s 1 |) OL CONCLUSION 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis 3 || CECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must detach and separately file 5 || Plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1-2). 6 IT FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, he 8 || must do so by January 7, 2024. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation 9 || that this case be dismissed. 10 11 DATED: December 7, 2023 12 13 Lg BRENDA WEKSLER 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28