Julian Alexander v. Octapharma Plasma Inc., et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02052
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Julian Alexander, Case No. 2:25-cv-02052-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 Octapharma Plasma Inc., et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. 11 Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay 12 fees or costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the Court will grant his request to proceed in 13 forma pauperis. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s complaint. 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 hard to understand. Specifically, it is not clear which claims 12 Plaintiff seeks to bring, the facts underlying them, or which Defendant is responsible for what 13 conduct. ECF No. 1-1. Even liberally construing Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court cannot evaluate 14 whether Plaintiff states any claims for relief. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s 15 complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. 16 C. Instructions for Amendment 17 Plaintiff is advised that if he files an amended complaint, he must specify which claims he 18 is alleging against which defendants and what facts underlie each claim. Although the Federal 19 Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, Plaintiff still must give defendants fair 20 notice of each of the claims he is alleging against each defendant. 21 Plaintiff is also advised that if he chooses to file an amended complaint, the original 22 complaint no longer serves any function in this case. As such, if he files an amended complaint, 23 each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be alleged sufficiently. The court cannot 24 refer to a prior pleading or to other documents to make his amended complaint complete. The 25 amended complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to prior pleadings or to 26 other documents. 27 / / 1 |) UL. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis 3 || CECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court must detach and separately file 5 || Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will have until December 4, 2025, to file an 7 || amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint by that date may result in dismissal of 8 || the case. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail Plaintiff'a copy of the 10 || prisoner, pro se form complaint. 11 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. 12 13 14 DATED: November 3, 2025 15 Ling line basin BRENDA WEKSLER 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28