2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 TERON FRANKLIN, Case No. 3:23-cv-00291-ART-CSD 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.
7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
8 Defendants.
9 10 Plaintiff Teron Franklin (“Plaintiff”), who is incarcerated in the custody of 11 the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), has submitted a civil rights 12 complaint (“Complaint”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an application to proceed in 13 forma pauperis, and a motion for leave to file excess pages. (ECF Nos. 1, 3-1, 3- 14 3.) The matter of the filing fee will be temporarily deferred. The Court now screens 15 Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and disposes of the motion. 16 SCREENING STANDARD 17 Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which 18 a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 19 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must 20 identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, 21 malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary 22 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings, however, must be liberally construed. 24 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). to state a 25 claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 26 the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, 27 1 and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color 2 of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 3 In addition to the screening requirements under § 1915A, under the Prison 4 Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a federal court must dismiss an incarcerated 5 person’s claim if “the allegation of poverty is untrue” or if the action “is frivolous 6 or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks 7 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 8 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which 9 relief can be granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 10 and the Court applies the same standard under § 1915 when reviewing the 11 adequacy of a complaint or an amended complaint. When a court dismisses a 12 complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 13 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the 14 face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. 15 See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 16 Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See 17 Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). Dismissal for 18 failure to state a claim is proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove 19 any set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him or her to relief. See 20 Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). In making this 21 determination, the Court takes as true all allegations of material fact stated in 22 the complaint, and the Court construes them in the light most favorable to the 23 plaintiff. See Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., 74 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1996). 24 Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to less stringent standards than 25 formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). 26 While the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual 27 allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. See 1 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of 2 the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. See id. 3 Additionally, a reviewing court should “begin by identifying pleadings 4 [allegations] that, because they are no more than mere conclusions, are not 5 entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 6 “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must 7 be supported with factual allegations.” Id. “When there are well-pleaded factual 8 allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether 9 they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. “Determining whether a 10 complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . . [is] a context-specific task that 11 requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common 12 sense.” Id. 13 Finally, all or part of a complaint filed by an incarcerated person may be 14 dismissed sua sponte if that person’s claims lack an arguable basis either in law 15 or in fact. This includes claims based on legal conclusions that are untenable 16 (e.g., claims against defendants who are immune from suit or claims of 17 infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist), as well as claims 18 based on fanciful factual allegations (e.g., fantastic or delusional scenarios). See 19 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989); see also McKeever v. Block, 20 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 SCREENING OF COMPLAINT 22 In his 136-page Complaint, Plaintiff sues over 20 defendants for events 23 that took place while he was incarcerated at Northern Nevada Correctional 24 Center (“NNCC”). (ECF No. 3-1 at 1.) Plaintiff brings four claims under the First, 25 Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and seeks monetary and injunctive relief. 26 (Id. at 49–86.) 27 The claims arise out of different transactions, occurrences, or series of 1 transactions and involve different defendants or groups of defendants. The Court 2 dismisses the entire Complaint without prejudice with leave to amend because 3 Plaintiff’s 136-page Complaint does not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 4 Procedure (“FRCP”). The Court now advises Plaintiff of the following 5 requirements under the FRCP in order to facilitate the filing of a properly 6 formatted amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that the failure to comply with 7 these rules when drafting and filing his amended complaint may result in this 8 action being dismissed. 9 A.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 TERON FRANKLIN, Case No. 3:23-cv-00291-ART-CSD 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.
7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
8 Defendants.
9 10 Plaintiff Teron Franklin (“Plaintiff”), who is incarcerated in the custody of 11 the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), has submitted a civil rights 12 complaint (“Complaint”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an application to proceed in 13 forma pauperis, and a motion for leave to file excess pages. (ECF Nos. 1, 3-1, 3- 14 3.) The matter of the filing fee will be temporarily deferred. The Court now screens 15 Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and disposes of the motion. 16 SCREENING STANDARD 17 Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which 18 a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 19 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must 20 identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, 21 malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary 22 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings, however, must be liberally construed. 24 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). to state a 25 claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 26 the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, 27 1 and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color 2 of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 3 In addition to the screening requirements under § 1915A, under the Prison 4 Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a federal court must dismiss an incarcerated 5 person’s claim if “the allegation of poverty is untrue” or if the action “is frivolous 6 or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks 7 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 8 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which 9 relief can be granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 10 and the Court applies the same standard under § 1915 when reviewing the 11 adequacy of a complaint or an amended complaint. When a court dismisses a 12 complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 13 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the 14 face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. 15 See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 16 Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See 17 Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). Dismissal for 18 failure to state a claim is proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove 19 any set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him or her to relief. See 20 Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). In making this 21 determination, the Court takes as true all allegations of material fact stated in 22 the complaint, and the Court construes them in the light most favorable to the 23 plaintiff. See Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., 74 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1996). 24 Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to less stringent standards than 25 formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). 26 While the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual 27 allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. See 1 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of 2 the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. See id. 3 Additionally, a reviewing court should “begin by identifying pleadings 4 [allegations] that, because they are no more than mere conclusions, are not 5 entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 6 “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must 7 be supported with factual allegations.” Id. “When there are well-pleaded factual 8 allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether 9 they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. “Determining whether a 10 complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . . [is] a context-specific task that 11 requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common 12 sense.” Id. 13 Finally, all or part of a complaint filed by an incarcerated person may be 14 dismissed sua sponte if that person’s claims lack an arguable basis either in law 15 or in fact. This includes claims based on legal conclusions that are untenable 16 (e.g., claims against defendants who are immune from suit or claims of 17 infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist), as well as claims 18 based on fanciful factual allegations (e.g., fantastic or delusional scenarios). See 19 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989); see also McKeever v. Block, 20 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 SCREENING OF COMPLAINT 22 In his 136-page Complaint, Plaintiff sues over 20 defendants for events 23 that took place while he was incarcerated at Northern Nevada Correctional 24 Center (“NNCC”). (ECF No. 3-1 at 1.) Plaintiff brings four claims under the First, 25 Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and seeks monetary and injunctive relief. 26 (Id. at 49–86.) 27 The claims arise out of different transactions, occurrences, or series of 1 transactions and involve different defendants or groups of defendants. The Court 2 dismisses the entire Complaint without prejudice with leave to amend because 3 Plaintiff’s 136-page Complaint does not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 4 Procedure (“FRCP”). The Court now advises Plaintiff of the following 5 requirements under the FRCP in order to facilitate the filing of a properly 6 formatted amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that the failure to comply with 7 these rules when drafting and filing his amended complaint may result in this 8 action being dismissed. 9 A. FRCP 8, 10, 18, and 20 10 Plaintiff’s Complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the 11 claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each 12 allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). A party 13 must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far 14 as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). “[E]ach 15 claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a 16 separate count.” Id. 17 The function of the Complaint is not to list every single fact relating to 18 Plaintiff’s claims. If Plaintiff wishes to amend his Complaint, he must set forth 19 his claims in a simple, concise, and direct manner in order to meet the 20 requirements of FRCP 8. A basic lawsuit is a single claim against a single 21 defendant. FRCP 18(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple claims to the lawsuit 22 when they are against the same defendant. FRCP 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to 23 join multiple defendants to a lawsuit where the right to relief arises out of the 24 same “transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions” and “any question of 25 law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” However, unrelated 26 claims that involve different defendants must be brought in separate lawsuits. 27 See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that “[a] 1 buckshot complaint that would be rejected if filed by a free person—say, a suit 2 complaining that A defrauded the plaintiff, B defamed him, C punched him, D 3 failed to pay a debt, and E infringed his copyright, all in different transactions— 4 should be rejected if filed by a prisoner”). This rule is not only intended to avoid 5 confusion that arises out of bloated lawsuits, but also to ensure that inmates 6 pay the required filing fees for their lawsuits and prevent inmates from 7 circumventing the three strikes rule under the PLRA. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 8 The Court advises Plaintiff that each claim that is raised in his amended 9 complaint must be permitted by either Rule 18 or Rule 20. Plaintiff may state a 10 single claim against a single defendant. Plaintiff may then add any additional 11 claims to his action that are against the same defendant under FRCP 18. Plaintiff 12 may also add any additional claims against other defendants if those claims 13 arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions as 14 his original claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Any attempt to join claims that are 15 not permitted by the FRCP will result in those claims being dismissed as 16 improperly joined. 17 In the instant case, Plaintiff brings several different claims against several 18 different prison officials that are unrelated and cannot proceed in a single action. 19 For example, Plaintiff raises claims pertaining to due process, medical care for 20 different issues, and failure to protect. See generally ECF No. 3-1. If Plaintiff 21 elects to amend his Complaint, he must choose which related claims he wishes 22 to pursue in this action. If Plaintiff’s amended complaint sets forth unrelated 23 claims which violate joinder rules, the Court will dismiss the claims it finds to 24 be improperly joined. 25 B. Motion Seeking to Exceed Page Limit (3-3) 26 The Court denies Plaintiff's motion to exceed the 30-page limit for civil 27 rights filings by pro se inmates (ECF No. 3-3) because the Court has dismissed 1 the entire Complaint without prejudice with leave to amend for failure to comply 2 with the FRCP. 3 LEAVE TO AMEND 4 Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint to cure the 5 deficiencies of the Complaint. If he chooses to file an amended complaint, he is 6 advised that an amended complaint supersedes (replaces) the original complaint 7 and, thus, the amended complaint must be complete in itself. See Hal Roach 8 Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) 9 (holding that “[t]he fact that a party was named in the original complaint is 10 irrelevant; an amended pleading supersedes the original”); see also Lacey v. 11 Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that for claims 12 dismissed with prejudice, a plaintiff is not required to reallege such claims in a 13 subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal). Plaintiff’s amended 14 complaint must contain all claims, defendants, and factual allegations that he 15 wishes to pursue in this lawsuit, and he must also comply with the FRCP. 16 Moreover, Plaintiff should file the amended complaint on this Court’s approved 17 prisoner civil rights form, and it must be entitled “First Amended Complaint.” If 18 Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies of his 19 Complaint, as outlined in this order, he will file the amended complaint within 20 30 days from the entry date of this order. 21 CONCLUSION 22 It is therefore ordered that a decision on the application to proceed in forma 23 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is deferred. 24 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court file the Complaint (ECF 25 No. 3-1) and send Plaintiff a courtesy copy. 26 It is further ordered that the entire Complaint (ECF No. 3-1) is dismissed 27 without prejudice with leave to amend for failure to comply with the FRCP. 1 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion seeking leave to file excess pages 2 || (ECF No. 3-3) is denied without prejudice. 3 It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint 4 || curing the deficiencies of his Complaint, as outlined in this order, he will file the 5 || amended complaint within 30 days from the entry date of this order. 6 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court will send to Plaintiff the 7 || approved form for filing a § 1983 complaint and instructions for the same. If 8 || Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he should use the approved form 9 || and mark “First Amended Complaint” in the caption. 10 It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint 11 || curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, the Court will dismiss this action 12 || without prejudice for failure to state a claim. 13 14 15 DATED THIS 2nd day of August 2024. 16 17 en Fee Wasaed
19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28