Cooper v. Robertson

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 10, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01637
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 Mark Cooper, Case No. 2:24-cv-01637-CDS-BNW 5 Plaintiff, 6 SCREENING ORDER AND v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 Jasney Robertson, 8 Defendants. 9 10 Pro se plaintiff Mark Cooper initiated this lawsuit by filing an application to proceed in 11 forma pauperis and a complaint. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by 28 12 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees or costs or give security for them. 13 Accordingly, the court will grant his request to proceed in forma pauperis. The court now screens 14 his complaint. 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 22 for 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 alleges the following: he entered into a contract with defendant, Jasney 14 Robertson, for the rental of a car. Pursuant to the contract, defendant was to carry insurance. 15 Defendant got into an accident, totalled the vehicle, and did not have insurance to pay for the 16 repairs. As a result, Plaintiff sues for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges that he and defendant 17 reside in Nevada and that the damages at issue are $31,000. As explained in more detail below, 18 the Court will recommend that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. 19 “Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power 20 authorized by Constitution and statute.” K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024, 21 1027 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). Federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all 22 civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” otherwise 23 known as federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal district courts also have original 24 jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum 25 or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1332(a). “Section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship; each of the plaintiffs must be 27 a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.” Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 1 Plaintiff also has not established federal question jurisdiction as there is no federal law or 2 || statute that governs the contract in question. Regarding diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff alleges that 3 || he resides in Nevada, as does defendant, Jansey Robertson. In addition, the amount in controversy 4 || does not exceed $75,000.00. Accordingly, there is not complete diversity. As a result, whatever 5 || claims Plaintiff may have against defendant must be litigated in state court, which is a court of 6 || general jurisdiction. 7 || OL CONCLUSION 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in 9 || forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to 10 || conclusion without prepaying fees or costs or giving security for them. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court must detach and separately file 12 || Plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 13 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without 14 || leave to amend. 15 NOTICE 16 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned 17 || to this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation 18 || may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being 19 || served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely 20 || objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 21 || 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 23 DATED: September 10, 2024 24 25 KK gm la WEE BRENDA WEKSLER 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28