Adrian Zevon Lewis v. Clark County, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01915
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 * * * 3 Adrian Zevon Lewis, Case No. 2:25-cv-01915-RFB-BNW 4 Plaintiff, 5 Order v. 6 Clark County, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Pro se plaintiff Adrian Lewis brings this lawsuit regarding alleged constitutional 10 violations by several defendants. He moves to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. Lewis 11 submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees or 12 costs or give security for them. Lewis’ request to proceed in forma pauperis therefore will be 13 granted. The court now screens his complaint (ECF No. 1-1) as required by 28 U.S.C. § 14 1915(e)(2). 15 I. ANALYSIS 16 A. Screening standard 17 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 19 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 20 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for 22 failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 23 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 24 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 25 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 26 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 27 1 his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 3 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of 4 material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler 5 Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 6 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff 7 must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 8 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. 9 Unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se 10 plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s 11 deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 12 B. Screening the complaint 13 Plaintiff simply provides the causes of actions he wishes to pursue against defendants but 14 fails to provide any facts supporting the different allegations. Although Plaintiff files several 15 exhibits, he must still provide a factual narrative that corresponds to each of the causes of action 16 he wishes to assert. As it stands, the court finds Plaintiff does not state a claim against any of the 17 defendants mentioned in the complaint. This Court therefore will dismiss his complaint with 18 leave to amend. 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 describing the 21 underlying case and each defendant’s involvement in the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 22 Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading standard, Plaintiff still 23 must give each defendant fair notice of his claims and entitlement to relief. 24 Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that if he files an amended complaint, the original 25 complaint (ECF No. 1-1) no longer serves any function in this case. As such, the amended 26 complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to prior pleadings or other 27 documents. The court cannot refer to a prior pleading or other documents to make his amended 1 |) UL. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma 3 || pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion 4 || without prepaying fees or costs or giving security for them. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with leave to 6 || amend. Should Plaintiff wish to amend his complaint, he must do so no later than November 10, 7 || 2025. Failure to file an amended complaint buy the due date may result in this case being 8 || dismissed. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court must detach and separately file 10 || plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 1] 12 DATED: October 8, 2025 13 14 Ly gw len nce ban B DA WEKSLER 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28