Johnson v. McMahon ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 Robert Johnson, Case No. 2:24-cv-1927-BNW 5 Plaintiff, 6 ORDER v. 7 Coleen McMahon 8 Defendants. 9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. 11 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 his request to proceed in 13 forma pauperis. The court now screens Plaintiff’s complaint. 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 Venue may be raised by a court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet filed a 12 responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not run. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 13 (9th Cir. 1986). Section 1391(b) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code provides, in pertinent part, that a 14 “civil action may be brought in – (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all 15 defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; [or] (2) a judicial district in 16 which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a 17 substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); 18 Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488; Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 842 19 (9th Cir. 1986). “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong 20 division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interests of justice, transfer such case to any 21 district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 22 Plaintiff’s complaint is hard to understand. Nevertheless, it is clear that the conduct at 23 issue took place in Mansfield, Ohio. Thus, Plaintiff's claims bear no relation whatsoever to the 24 District of Nevada. Accordingly, the Court finds venue is not proper in the District of Nevada. 25 See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss 26 Plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend. 27 1 |) OL CONCLUSION 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis 3 || CECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without leave to 5 || amend. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 7 8 DATED: November 8, 2024 9 Li ge Les needa BRENDA WEKSLER , 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28