Jeromy Oelker v. State of Idaho and State of Nevada

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01589
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4 * * *

5 Jeromy Oelker, Case No. 2:25-cv-01589-CDS-BNW

6 Plaintiff, ORDER and REPORT AND 7 v. RECOMMENDATION

8 State of Idaho and State of Nevada,

9 Defendants.

10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Jeromy Oelker moves to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. He 12 submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees or 13 costs or give security for them. His request to proceed in forma pauperis, therefore, will be 14 granted. This Court now screens his complaint (ECF No. 11) as required by 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1915(e)(2). 16 I. ANALYSIS 17 A. Screening standard 18 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 20 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 21 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard 23 for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 24 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 25 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 26 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 27 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 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 13 It appears Plaintiff seeks to appeal the decisions in case numbers 2:25-cv-00427-JAD- 14 BNW and 2:25-cv-00528-JAD-DJA. Plaintiff does not need to file a new complaint in order to 15 appeal the decisions in those cases. He simply needs to file a notice of appeal with the Ninth 16 Circuit and reference the correct case number when doing so. As a result, this Court recommends 17 that this case be dismissed with prejudice as Plaintiff does not intend to state a new cause of 18 action. 19 II. CONCLUSION 20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 21 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff will not be required to pay the filing fee in this 22 action. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must file Plaintiff's complaint 2 || CECF No. 1-1) on the docket. 3 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed with prejudice. 4 5 NOTICE 6 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned 7 || to this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation 8 || may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being 9 || served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely 10 || objection may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s Order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 11 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 13 DATED: October 8, 2025 14 Zi gum le Wr ERR, BRENDA WEKSLER □ 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28