Riles v. Carlson ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 Brittany Riles et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01070-CDS-BNW 5 Plaintiffs, ORDER 6 v. 7 Tucker Carison et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Plaintiff Anysha Cox brings this lawsuit and moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). 11 See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an 12 inability to prepay fees or costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the Court will grant her 13 request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 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 for 21 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. Generally, 12 she appears to be alleging that the different reporters made false statements about her. But it is not 13 clear what the statements. Moreover, the handwriting is not very clear and, as a result, the Court 14 cannot understand how any such statements harmed Plaintiff. The number and content of the 15 attachments make the claim(s) even harder to understand. In short, even liberally construing 16 Plaintiff’s complaint, it does not state sufficient factual allegations about the underlying dispute 17 and the defendants’ role in the matter to state a claim. As a result, the Court will dismiss her claim 18 without prejudice and allow her to re-file an amended complaint. 19 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the document must be titled “Amended 20 Complaint.” The amended complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for 21 the Court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Additionally, the amended complaint must 22 contain a short and plain statement describing the underlying case and the defendants’ 23 involvement in the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules of Civil 24 Procedure adopt a flexible pleading standard, Plaintiff still must give each defendant fair notice of 25 her claims against them and of Plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. 26 Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that if she files an amended complaint, the original 27 complaint (ECF No. 1-1) no longer serves any function in this case. As such, the amended 1 documents. The Court cannot refer to a prior pleading or other documents to make Plaintiff’s 2 amended complaint complete. 3 II. CONCLUSION 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 5 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must detach and separately file 7 Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 8 IT FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mail Plaintiff a copy of the 10 court-approved complaint form for individuals proceeding pro se. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, she 12 must do so by July 15, 2024, and use the enclosed form. Failure to comply with this order will 13 result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. 14 15 DATED: June 10, 2024 16 17 BRENDA WEKSLER 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27