3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 *** Roderick L. Hymon, 8 Case No. 2:23-cv-01343-JAD-VCF
9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 vs. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 11 Steven D. Grierson, et al., (EFC NO. 1) AND COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1-1)
Defendants. 12
13 Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and a complaint. ECF Nos. 1 and 14 1-1. I grant plaintiff’s IFP application. ECF No. 1. I dismiss his complaint without prejudice. ECF No. 15 1-1. 16 DISCUSSION 17 Plaintiff’s filings present two questions: (1) whether plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis 18 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and (2) whether plaintiff’s complaint states a plausible claim for relief. 20 I. Whether Plaintiff May Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or 22 security thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to 23 pay such fees or give security therefor.” If the plaintiff is a "prisoner" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), 24 as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), he remains obligated to pay the entire fee in 25 installments, regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Castaneda v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff is incarcerated and his financial 1 certificate reflects that he has no money in his account. ECF No. 1. I grant plaintiff’s IFP application. 2 Considering his $0.00 average balance and deposits, he is not required to pay an initial partial 3 4 filing fee. Whenever his account exceeds $10, however, he must make monthly payments in the amount 5 of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to his account until the $350 filing fee is paid. 6 II. Whether Plaintiff’s Complaint States a Plausible Claim 7 a. Legal Standard 8 Since I grant plaintiff’s IFP application, I review plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether the 9 complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a plausible claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Federal 10 Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) provides that a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of 11 the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Rule 8 ensures that each defendant has "fair 12 notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Dura Pharms., Inc. v. 13 Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346, 125 S. Ct. 1627, 161 L. Ed. 2d 577 (2005). The Supreme Court’s decision in 14 Ashcroft v. Iqbal states that to satisfy Rule 8’s requirements, a complaint’s allegations must cross “the 15 line from conceivable to plausible.” 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 16 17 550 U.S. 544, 547, (2007)). Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for 18 dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A complaint 19 should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), “if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set 20 of facts in support of her claims that would entitle him to relief.” Buckey v. Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 21 794 (9th Cir. 1992). 22 “[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than 23 formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. 24 Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). If the Court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff 25 2 should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is 1 clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Cato v. 2 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 3 4 Section 1983 "'is not itself a source of substantive rights,' but merely provides 'a method for 5 vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.'" Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94, 109 S. Ct. 6 1865, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n. 3, 99 S. Ct. 2689, 61 7 L. Ed. 2d 433 (1979)). To obtain relief pursuant to section 1983, a plaintiff must establish a "(1) a 8 violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute, (2) proximately caused (3) 9 by conduct of a 'person' (4) acting under color of state law." Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 10 (9th Cir. 1991). Section 1915(d) accords judges the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably 11 meritless legal theory, for example, a claim in which it is clear that the defendant is immune from suit. 12 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989). "Court clerks have 13 absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they perform tasks that 14 are an integral part of the judicial process." Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 15 1390 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1040 (1988); Morrison v. Jones, 607 F.2d 1269, 1273 (9th 16 17 Cir. 1979). 18 b. Complaint 19 Plaintiff’s complaint is difficult to read, but it appears that plaintiff is a pretrial detainee who 20 alleges that the clerk of the state district court rejected his habeas petitions because of racial bias and 21 animus toward habitual criminals. He alleges violations of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments 22 against Steven D. Grierson personally, the Deputy Clerk of the District Court Regional Justice Center. 23 Plaintiff's claims against Clerk Grierson are barred by judicial immunity. Plaintiff asserts conclusory 24 allegations, devoid of factual support, against Clerk Grierson: he alleges that the clerk has racial bias and 25 3 animus towards criminals, but he does not provide any supporting facts. Plaintiff’s bare bone allegations 1 against Clerk Grierson do not comply with Rule 8. 2 Nonjudicial officials have absolute immunity for their duties that are integrally related to the 3 4 judicial process. Processing court filings, including habeas petitions, is undoubtedly within a clerk's 5 official duties and integrally related to the judicial process.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 *** Roderick L. Hymon, 8 Case No. 2:23-cv-01343-JAD-VCF
9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 vs. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 11 Steven D. Grierson, et al., (EFC NO. 1) AND COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1-1)
Defendants. 12
13 Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and a complaint. ECF Nos. 1 and 14 1-1. I grant plaintiff’s IFP application. ECF No. 1. I dismiss his complaint without prejudice. ECF No. 15 1-1. 16 DISCUSSION 17 Plaintiff’s filings present two questions: (1) whether plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis 18 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and (2) whether plaintiff’s complaint states a plausible claim for relief. 20 I. Whether Plaintiff May Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or 22 security thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to 23 pay such fees or give security therefor.” If the plaintiff is a "prisoner" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), 24 as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), he remains obligated to pay the entire fee in 25 installments, regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Castaneda v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff is incarcerated and his financial 1 certificate reflects that he has no money in his account. ECF No. 1. I grant plaintiff’s IFP application. 2 Considering his $0.00 average balance and deposits, he is not required to pay an initial partial 3 4 filing fee. Whenever his account exceeds $10, however, he must make monthly payments in the amount 5 of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to his account until the $350 filing fee is paid. 6 II. Whether Plaintiff’s Complaint States a Plausible Claim 7 a. Legal Standard 8 Since I grant plaintiff’s IFP application, I review plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether the 9 complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a plausible claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Federal 10 Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) provides that a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of 11 the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Rule 8 ensures that each defendant has "fair 12 notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Dura Pharms., Inc. v. 13 Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346, 125 S. Ct. 1627, 161 L. Ed. 2d 577 (2005). The Supreme Court’s decision in 14 Ashcroft v. Iqbal states that to satisfy Rule 8’s requirements, a complaint’s allegations must cross “the 15 line from conceivable to plausible.” 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 16 17 550 U.S. 544, 547, (2007)). Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for 18 dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A complaint 19 should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), “if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set 20 of facts in support of her claims that would entitle him to relief.” Buckey v. Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 21 794 (9th Cir. 1992). 22 “[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than 23 formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. 24 Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). If the Court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff 25 2 should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is 1 clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Cato v. 2 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 3 4 Section 1983 "'is not itself a source of substantive rights,' but merely provides 'a method for 5 vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.'" Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94, 109 S. Ct. 6 1865, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n. 3, 99 S. Ct. 2689, 61 7 L. Ed. 2d 433 (1979)). To obtain relief pursuant to section 1983, a plaintiff must establish a "(1) a 8 violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute, (2) proximately caused (3) 9 by conduct of a 'person' (4) acting under color of state law." Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 10 (9th Cir. 1991). Section 1915(d) accords judges the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably 11 meritless legal theory, for example, a claim in which it is clear that the defendant is immune from suit. 12 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989). "Court clerks have 13 absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they perform tasks that 14 are an integral part of the judicial process." Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 15 1390 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1040 (1988); Morrison v. Jones, 607 F.2d 1269, 1273 (9th 16 17 Cir. 1979). 18 b. Complaint 19 Plaintiff’s complaint is difficult to read, but it appears that plaintiff is a pretrial detainee who 20 alleges that the clerk of the state district court rejected his habeas petitions because of racial bias and 21 animus toward habitual criminals. He alleges violations of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments 22 against Steven D. Grierson personally, the Deputy Clerk of the District Court Regional Justice Center. 23 Plaintiff's claims against Clerk Grierson are barred by judicial immunity. Plaintiff asserts conclusory 24 allegations, devoid of factual support, against Clerk Grierson: he alleges that the clerk has racial bias and 25 3 animus towards criminals, but he does not provide any supporting facts. Plaintiff’s bare bone allegations 1 against Clerk Grierson do not comply with Rule 8. 2 Nonjudicial officials have absolute immunity for their duties that are integrally related to the 3 4 judicial process. Processing court filings, including habeas petitions, is undoubtedly within a clerk's 5 official duties and integrally related to the judicial process. Based on the limited facts in the complaint, 6 Clerk Grierson is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. I dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against 7 Clerk Grierson without prejudice. 8 It is possible that these deficiencies may be cured through amendment. Plaintiff must file an 9 amended complaint explaining the factual circumstances of the case and the law upon which he relies in 10 bringing the case. The amended complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to the 11 superseded pleading. 12 ACCORDINGLY, 13 I ORDER that plaintiff Roderick L. Hymon’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 14 1) is GRANTED. 15 I FURTHER ORDER that plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT 16 17 PREJUDICE. 18 I FURTHER ORDER that plaintiff has until Monday, November 6, 2023, to file an amended 19 complaint addressing the issues discussed above. Failure to timely file an amended complaint that 20 addresses the deficiencies noted in this Order may result in a recommendation for dismissal with 21 prejudice. 22 I FURTHER ORDER that if plaintiff files an amended complaint, the Clerk of the Court is 23 directed NOT to issue summons on the amended complaint. I will issue a screening order on the 24 amended complaint and address the issuance of summons at that time, if applicable. See 28 U.S.C. § 25 4 1915(e)(2). 1 I FURTHER ORDER that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation 2 Reform Act, whenever plaintiff’s account exceeds $10, the Clark County Detention Center must forward 3 4 payments from the account of Roderick L. Hymon (631076) to the Clerk of the United States District 5 Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits (in months that the account exceeds 6 $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. If this action is dismissed, the full 7 filing fee must still be paid pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 8 I FURTHER ORDER that if plaintiff is transferred, the Accounting Supervisor at Clark County 9 Detention Center is directed to send a copy of this Order to the new place of incarceration and indicate 10 the amount that plaintiff has paid towards his filing fee so that funds may continue to be deducted from 11 his account. 12 I FURTHER ORDER that the Clerk of the Court must send a copy of this Order to the Finance 13 Division of the Clerk's Office and to the Clark County Detention Center Accounting Supervisor, 330 14 South Casino Center, Las Vegas, NV 89101. 15 NOTICE 16 17 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 18 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 19 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 20 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 21 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 22 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 23 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 24 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 25 5 1153, 1157 (th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
5 Pursuant to LR JA 3-1, plaintiffs must immediately file written notification with the court of any change 3 || of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon 4 || the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 5 result in dismissal of the action. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 DATED this 5th day of October 2023. . Load eel e. 8 Je eee 9 CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25