Ramirez v. Nevada Police Department ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Denise Ramirez, Case No. 2:24-cv-01116-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Nevada Police Department, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested 12 authority to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff also submitted a complaint. (ECF 13 No. 1-1). Because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s application is complete, it grants the application 14 to proceed in forma pauperis. However, because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does 15 not properly assert sufficient facts, it dismisses the complaint with leave to amend. 16 I. In forma pauperis application. 17 Plaintiff filed the affidavit required by § 1915(a). (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has shown an 18 inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed 19 in forma pauperis will be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court will now review 20 Plaintiff’s complaint. 21 II. Legal standard for screening. 22 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 23 complaint under § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is 24 legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 26 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend 27 the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 1 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 2 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 3 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a 4 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 5 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 6 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of 7 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. 8 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual 9 allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the 10 elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. 11 Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations 12 contained in the complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 13 556 U.S. at 679. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory 14 allegations, do not suffice. Id. at 678. Where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the 15 line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 16 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings 17 drafted by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 18 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 19 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by 20 the Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004). Under 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the 22 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Cases “arise under” federal law either when 23 federal law creates the cause of action or where the vindication of a right under state law 24 necessarily turns on the construction of federal law. Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 25 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002). Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists is based on the 26 “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a 27 federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 1 district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in 2 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of 3 different states.” Generally speaking, diversity jurisdiction exists only where there is “complete 4 diversity” among the parties; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each 5 of the defendants. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). 6 III. Screening the complaint. 7 Plaintiff sues the “Nevada Police Department” for mistreating her after arresting her. 8 Plaintiff alleges that she was arrested on June 14th—although she does not specify the year—and 9 was held until the morning of June 16th. While in holding, unspecified individuals claimed that 10 she was suicidal and was in a gang. Plaintiff also alleges that unspecified individuals broke her 11 hand when she was arrested a year ago (it is unclear if this is the same arrest she alleges took 12 place on June 14th). Plaintiff asserts that “[t]he police are breaking everybody[’]s hands and 13 beating everyone inside the jail.” 14 Plaintiff does not allege a claim upon which relief can be granted for three reasons. First, 15 Plaintiff does not properly identify the Defendant. Plaintiff sues the “Nevada Police 16 Department,” but that is not a law enforcement agency. Plaintiff must identify the specific law 17 enforcement agency against which she brings her claims. Second, Plaintiff does not adequately 18 state the date on which the incidents she alleges took place. Plaintiff must include the year when 19 she was arrested in any amended complaint. She must also specify whether law enforcement 20 officers broke her hand in course of the June arrest she specifies or a different arrest. Third, 21 Plaintiff has not identified the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over her claims (section II on the 22 complaint form). The Court thus dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. 23 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 25 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted. Plaintiff shall not be required to pre-pay the filing fee. 26 Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of 27 any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. This order granting leave to 1 || proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at 2 || government expense. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to file □□□□□□□□□□ 4 || complaint (ECF No. 1-1) on the docket but shall not issue summons. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without 6 || prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with leave to amend. 7 || Plaimtiff will have until August 12, 2024, to file an amended complaint if the noted deficiencies 8 || can be corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the Court 9 || cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) to make the amended complaint 10 || complete. This is because, generally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 11 || Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended complaint be complete without reference to any 12 || prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original complaint no longer 13 || serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, 14 || each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Failure to 15 || comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of this case. 16 17 DATED: July 11, 2024 18 ><\ < | p DANIEL J. ALBRESTS 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28