Cleveland v. Flores

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00511
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Timothy Cleveland, Case No. 2:24-cv-00511-CDS-DJA

5 Plaintiff Order Discharging Show Cause Order, Dismissing Action for Lack of Subject 6 v. Matter Jurisdiction, and Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief as Moot 7 Andrew Flores and Larry Palmer,

8 Defendants [ECF Nos. 13, 26, 27]

9 10 Pro se plaintiff Timothy Cleveland initiated this action in this court in March 2024 (ECF 11 No. 1), and later filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 13). On November 18, 2024, Cleveland 12 filed a motion to change or transfer venue (ECF No. 25), which I denied. Order, ECF No 26. In 13 that same order, I required Cleveland to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for 14 lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at 3. Cleveland timely responded to the show-cause order. 15 Resp., ECF No. 28. Having reviewed Cleveland’s response, I have determined that I lack 16 jurisdiction over this matter. Thus, for the reasons set forth herein, I dismiss it without 17 prejudice. 18 I. Discussion 19 As the court noted in the order to show cause, this court is ultimately one of limited 20 jurisdiction. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing ‘only that power 21 authorized by Constitution and statute.’” See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 22 251, 256 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). This 23 court is required to determine if it has jurisdiction over this action. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 24 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (“A federal court has an obligation to determine whether the requirements 25 of federal subject matter jurisdiction have been met.”). 26 1 Even liberally construing1 Cleveland’s amended complaint and his response to the show- 2 cause order, I cannot determine whether I have jurisdiction, so dismissal is warranted. Ruhrgas 3 AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (“[S]ubject matter delineations must be policed 4 by the courts on their own initiative even at the highest level.”). It is unclear what causes of 5 action he intends to allege against defendants. Although Cleveland cites to various state and 6 federal statutes, he does not articulate how they give rise to viable claims against the defendants, 7 much less how this court has jurisdiction over any alleged claim under the statutes. Stated 8 otherwise, the amended complaint fails to “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 9 ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Therefore, the amended 10 complaint also violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which requires a 11 complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 12 entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1) (each allegation in a 13 complaint “must be simple, concise, and direct”). Even though Cleveland is proceeding pro se, he 14 must still comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341–42 (9th 15 Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual 16 allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief). Accordingly, I dismiss this action for 17 lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is impossible to determine if I have jurisdiction 18 over this action, and further, the amended complaint violates Rule 8. See Hearns v. San Bernadino 19 Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (noncompliance with Rule 8(a)(2) may be met 20 with sua sponte dismissal.). 21 II. Conclusion 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Cleveland’s amended complaint [ECF No. 13] is 23 DISMISSED without prejudice. 24 25

26 1 A district court must construe pro se pleadings liberally and hold such pleadings “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the December 9, 2024, order to show cause [ECF No. 26] is discharged. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Cleveland’s motion for injunctive relief [ECF No. 27] 4||is DENIED as moot. 5 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed enter judgment accordingly and to close this case. 6 Dated: January 22, 2025 /, / Le _— 8 Cristina VW. Silva Unity States District Judge 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26