Crooms v. Court of Appeals

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6 * * *

7 Leonard Ray Crooms, Case No. 2:22-cv-01290-CDS-EJY

8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. And 10 Court of Appeals First Supreme Judicial District, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 Defendant. 12

13 14 Pro se plaintiff Leonard Crooms filed a Complaint that appears to bring a claim arising from 15 parole from a criminal conviction that occurred in the State of Texas. ECF No. 1-1. Crooms seems 16 to contend he was wrongly convicted and that it was his cousin who committed the crime. Id. 17 Crooms says he is a slave to the parole system and seeks social equality and respect for the 18 individual. Id. Crooms also submitted the form for proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees or costs or give security for them. ECF No. 1. 20 I. Discussion 21 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 22 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 23 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, file to state a claim on which relief may be granted 24 or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 25 Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). 26 To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 27 true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 1 beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle 2 him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 3 678). 4 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of material 5 fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler Summit P’ship 6 v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). Although the 7 standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff must provide 8 more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 9 A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. Unless it is clear the 10 complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se plaintiff should be given 11 leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s deficiencies. Cato v. United 12 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 13 Federal courts may raise the question of subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte, and the 14 Court must dismiss a case if it determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 12(h)(3). The U.S. district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 16 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal district courts also 17 have original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in controversy 18 exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of different States.” 19 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Crooms’ Complaint fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, 20 while Croom’s Complaint alludes to the 13th and 14th Amendments, his allegations are largely 21 indecipherable. There is no cause of action identified and none the Court can discern from the 22 statements made by Crooms. Sua sponte dismissal is appropriate where claims lack legal 23 plausibility necessary to invoke subject matter jurisdiction in the federal courts. Johnson v. 24 Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2008). 25 Moreover, the Ninth Circuit holds that dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 is proper 26 where “the very prolixity of the complaint” make it difficult to determine just what circumstances 27 were supposed to give rise a cause of action. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.1996); 1 see also Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir.1981); Schmidt v. Herrmann, 2 614 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir.1980). 3 II. Order 4 Accordingly, because the Court recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint with 5 prejudice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma 6 Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED. 7 III. Recommendation 8 Further, in light of the nature of the allegations asserted in Crooms’ Complaint, IT IS 9 RECOMMENDED that the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be DISMISSED with prejudice as the content 10 of the Complaint fails to allege any facts or law the amendment of which would cure the 11 deficiencies stated therein. 12 Dated this 15th day of August, 2022. 13 14 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 NOTICE 17 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned to 18 this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation may 19 file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being served 20 with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely objection may 21 waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 22 1991). 23 24 25 26 27