Jack Sullivan v. Carmen Pacheco

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Jack Sullivan, Case No. 2:26-cv-00160-RFB-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 Carmen Pacheco,

8 Defendant.

9 10 Pro se Plaintiff Jack Sullivan brings this lawsuit and moves to proceed in forma pauperis 11 (IFP). See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing 12 an inability to prepay fees or costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the Court will grant his 13 request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 14 I. ANALYSIS 15 A. Screening standard 16 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 17 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 18 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 19 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard 21 for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 22 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 23 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 24 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 25 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 26 his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 27 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 1 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of 2 material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler 3 Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 4 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff 5 must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 6 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. 7 Unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se 8 plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s 9 deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 10 B. Screening the complaint 11 Plaintiff’s complaint is essentially void of any factual allegations. See ECF No. 1-1. Even 12 liberally construing Plaintiff’s complaint, it does not state sufficient factual allegations about the 13 underlying dispute and the defendant’s role in the matter to state a claim. 14 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the document must be titled “Amended 15 Complaint.” The amended complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for 16 the Court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Additionally, the amended complaint must 17 contain a short and plain statement describing the underlying case and the defendant’s 18 involvement in the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules of Civil 19 Procedure adopt a flexible pleading standard, Plaintiff still must give each defendant fair notice of 20 his claims against it and of Plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. 21 Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that if he files an amended complaint, the original 22 complaint (ECF No. 1-1) no longer serves any function in this case. As such, the amended 23 complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to prior pleadings or other 24 documents. The Court cannot refer to a prior pleading or other documents to make Plaintiff’s 25 amended complaint complete. 26 27 1 |) OL CONCLUSION 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 3 || pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must detach and separately file 5 || Plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 6 IT FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, he 8 || must do so by March 27, 2026. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation 9 || that this case be dismissed. 10 11 DATED: February 2, 2026 12 B Kx pn la WEEN BRENDA WEKSLER 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28