James Edward Clapsaddle v. Marcela Quezada, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02280
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 James Edward Clapsaddle, Case No. 2:25-cv-02280-APG-BNW

5 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER 6 v.

7 Marcela Quezada, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pro se plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint. ECF 11 No. 1. Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), but it is not on the correct 12 form, as required by the Local Rules. LSR1-1. In addition, based on the information provided, it 13 not clear that Plaintiff cannot prepay fees or costs or give security for them. Accordingly, this 14 Court will deny his request to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice and will allow him to 15 re-submit his request on the correct form that will be provided to him. This Court now screens his 16 complaint. 17 I. ANALYSIS 18 A. Screening standard 19 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 20 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 21 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 22 granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard 24 for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 25 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 26 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 27 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 1 his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 3 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of 4 material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler 5 Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 6 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff 7 must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 8 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. 9 Unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se 10 plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s 11 deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 12 B. Screening the complaint 13 A properly pled complaint must provide “[a] short and plain statement of the claim 14 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 15 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it 16 demands “more than labels and conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 17 (citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff provides no factual allegations to substantiate the causes of 18 action he wishes to assert. As such, even liberally construing his complaint, this Court cannot 19 determine whether he can state a claim. 20 In addition, “[f]ederal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that 21 power authorized by Constitution and statute.” K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 22 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). Federal district courts “have original 23 jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 24 States,” otherwise known as federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal district 25 courts also have original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in 26 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of 27 different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “Section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship; 1 each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.” Morris v. 2 Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). 3 Here, it is not clear how the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 minimum that 4 would give this Court jurisdiction over the matter. Plaintiff provides no basis to arrive at the 5 conclusion that the amount in controversy will be met. 6 C. Amendment 7 If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he must read this order carefully and address the current 8 deficiencies. This includes: providing specific facts under each cause of action he wishes to assert 9 and explain which defendant(s) is responsible for the claimed allegations and providing facts to 10 support the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 11 Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that if he files an amended complaint, the original 12 complaint (ECF No. 1-1) no longer serve any function in this case. The Court cannot refer to a 13 prior pleading or to other documents to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. The 14 amended complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to prior pleadings or to 15 other documents. 16 Lastly, Plaintiff is advised that, should there not be jurisdiction in federal court, he can 17 always file a complaint in Nevada state court. 18 II. CONCLUSION 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in 20 forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED without prejudice. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must send to Plaintiff the court- 22 approved in forma pauperis form for non-incarcerated plaintiffs. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must detach and separately file 24 Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 25 / / 26 / / 27 / / ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice 2 || and with leave to amend. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must do so by 3 || December 29, 2025, or this Court may recommend that his case be dismissed. 4 5 DATED: November 21, 2025 6 7 Li gn le We Eat, BRENDA WEKSLER 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28