Griego v. CHAPS Housing Assistant Program ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 APRIL GRIEGO, Case No. 2:24-cv-00653-ART-NJK 8 Plaintiff, Order 9 v. 10 CHAPS HOUSING ASSISTANT PROGRAM, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 On September 27, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s original complaint and dismissed it 14 with leave to amend. Docket No. 6. On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. 15 The Court herein screens that amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 16 I. STANDARDS 17 Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or 18 malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from 19 a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 20 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint 21 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is 22 essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 23 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim 24 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 25 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, 26 it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 27 of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 28 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the 1 complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 2 Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do 3 not suffice. Id. at 678. Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from 4 conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 5 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 6 by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 7 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 8 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to 9 amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of 10 the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 11 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 12 II. ANALYSIS 13 First, Plaintiff’s complaint does not establish subject matter jurisdiction. Diversity 14 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) does not exist here because Plaintiff and Defendants 15 appear to all be citizens of Nevada. See Docket No. 9 at 1-2. It is unclear whether there is any 16 basis for federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The complaint identifies no 17 federal cause of action or federal question; instead, Plaintiff submits “racial discrimination” and 18 disability discrimination” as the basis of jurisdiction. See Docket No. 9 at 3. Further, the amended 19 complaint attaches a copy of Plaintiff’s charge of public accommodation discrimination that was 20 filed with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission, where Plaintiff submits that she believes that 21 Defendant’s actions violated Nevada state law. Docket No. 9 at 7. The Court cannot discern from 22 the complaint any basis on which subject matter jurisdiction could exist. 23 Second, litigants are required to provide a short, plain statement of their claims, see Fed. 24 R. Civ. P. 8(a), including setting forth coherently who is being sued, for what relief, and on what 25 theory. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996). Although the pleadings of pro se 26 litigants are construed liberally, they must still comply with this requirement. E.g., Montgomery 27 v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dept., 2014 WL 3724213, at *3 n.3 (D. Nev. July 28, 2014). The 28 complaint fails to provide a short and plain statement of the case that Plaintiff is trying to bring. 1 Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff provides no factual allegations anywhere in the complaint. 2 Instead, Plaintiff attaches a copy of her charge of public accommodation discrimination that she 3 filed with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission and a letter from January 16, 2024. Docket No. 4 9 at 7,8. The Court will not review Plaintiff’s documents and piece together facts to formulate 5 causes of actions on Plaintiff’s behalf. Plaintiff must prepare a complaint that alleges facts setting 6 forth the nature of each Defendant’s conduct, what rights were allegedly violated, and how each 7 Defendant allegedly violated Plaintiff’s rights. The burden of presenting the facts of her case in a 8 “short and plain” manner must be carried by Plaintiff. Although the Court will liberally construe 9 Plaintiff’s complaint, sifting through documents and formulating claims on Plaintiff’s 10 behalf crosses the line between liberal construction and advocating on Plaintiff’s behalf. 11 Having determined that Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state any colorable claim for 12 relief, the Court must decide whether to afford Plaintiff leave to amend. A plaintiff should be 13 given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear 14 that the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1106. Leave to amend is 15 not automatic, however, and “the district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly 16 broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” City of Los Angeles v. San Pedro 17 Boat Works, 635 F.3d 440, 454 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobile Oil Co., 866 18 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989)). 19 Plaintiff has previously been afforded an opportunity to amend the complaint and was 20 specifically cautioned to ensure that she established subject matter jurisdiction and included factual 21 allegations. See Docket No. 6 at 3. Nonetheless, the Court will afford Plaintiff one final 22 opportunity to amend the complaint if she believes that any of the above deficiencies can be cured. 23 III. CONCLUSION 24 For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave 25 to amend. Docket No. 9. Plaintiff will have until November 25, 2024, to file an amended 26 complaint, if the noted deficiencies can be corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, 27 Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) in 28 order to make the amended complaint complete. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 1} complaint supersedes the original complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, 4] in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 6 Failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline set above may result in dismissal 7| of this case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: October 28, 2024 11 Unite Stale iN avistrate Judge gl g 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28