Drummer v. Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00965
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 SHIRLEY M. DRUMMER, Case No. 2:25-cv-00965-APG-NJK

8 Plaintiff, Order 9 v. [Docket No. 5] 10 SOUTHERN NEVADA REGIONAL 11 HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested 14 authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 5. Plaintiff also 15 submitted a third amended complaint. Docket No. 9. 16 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 17 Plaintiff filed the affidavit required by § 1915(a). Docket No. 5. Plaintiff has shown an 18 inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in 19 forma pauperis will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court will now review 20 Plaintiff’s complaint. 21 II. Screening the Complaint 22 Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or 23 malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from 24 a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 25 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint 26 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is 27 essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 28 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim 1 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 2 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, 3 it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 4 of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 5 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the 6 complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 7 Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do 8 not suffice. Id. at 678. Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from 9 conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 10 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 11 by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 12 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 13 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to 14 amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of 15 the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 16 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 17 III. Analysis 18 On June 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed her original complaint. Docket No. 1-2. On June 6, 2025, 19 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Docket No. 6. On June 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a second 20 amended complaint. Docket No. 8. On June 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. 21 Docket No. 9. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint adds two new defendants and new factual 22 allegations. See id. at 1-2. The Court will not piece together Plaintiff’s four different “complaints” 23 to determine what claims, defendants, and factual allegations Plaintiff wishes to pursue in this 24 lawsuit. Moreover, as a general rule, when a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the amended 25 complaint replaces all older filed complaints, including amended complaints. See Rhodes v. 26 Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating that, “when a plaintiff files an amended 27 complaint, ‘[t]he amended complaint super[s]edes the original, the latter being treated thereafter 28 as non-existent’”). 1/10. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Docket No. 5. 4 Plaintiff is not required to pay the filing fee of $405. Plaintiff is permitted to 5 maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any 6 additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. This order granting 7 leave to proceed in forma pauperis does not extend to the issuance and/or service 8 of subpoenas at government expense. 9 2. Plaintiffs third amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Docket 10 No. 9. Plaintiff will have until August 8, 2025, to file a fourth amended complaint. 1] Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint must contain all claims, defendants, and 12 factual allegations that Plaintiff wishes to pursue. Plaintiff is informed that the 13 Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint or previous 14 amended complaints) in order to make the amended complaint complete. This is 15 because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the previous 16 complaints. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended complaint be complete 17 in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an amended 18 complaint, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. 19 3. Failure to comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of this 20 case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: July 8, 2025 3 EE 24 Unite ‘ ales Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28