Dowling v. Riposta Cassidy Law ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 Angela Dawn Dowling, Case No. 2:24-cv-01102-JAD-BNW 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 Riposta Cassidy Law, 8 Defendants. 9 10 Plaintiff brings this lawsuit and moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). See ECF No. 11 1. Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay 12 fees or costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the Court will grant her request to proceed in 13 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. It appears 12 she has an issue with the representation that she received from former counsel. But it is not clear 13 what cause if action she is alleging. Even liberally construing Plaintiff’s complaint, it does not 14 state sufficient factual allegations about the underlying dispute and the defendants’ role in the 15 matter to state a claim. 16 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the document must be titled “Amended 17 Complaint.” The amended complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for 18 the Court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Additionally, the amended complaint must 19 contain a short and plain statement describing the underlying case and the defendants’ 20 involvement in the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules of Civil 21 Procedure adopt a flexible pleading standard, Plaintiff still must give each defendant fair notice of 22 her claims against it and of Plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. 23 Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that if she files an amended complaint, the original 24 complaint (ECF No. 1-1) no longer serves any function in this case. As such, the amended 25 complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to prior pleadings or other 26 documents. The Court cannot refer to a prior pleading or other documents to make Plaintiff’s 27 amended complaint complete. 1 II. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 3 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must detach and separately file 5 Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 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, she 8 must do so by July 17, 2024. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation 9 that this case be dismissed. 10 THE CLERK IS KINDLY INSTRUCTED to mail Plaintiff a copy of the pro se 11 complaint form approved by the Court. 12 13 DATED: June 17, 2024 14 15 BRENDA WEKSLER 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27