Julian J. Alexander v. Metro Police Department

Opinion

Julian J. Alexander, Case No. 2:25-cv-01980-APG-NJK

Plaintiff(s), Order

v. [Docket No. 1] Metro Police Department, Defendant(s). Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. I. In Forma Pauperis Application Plaintiff filed an affidavit required by § 1915(a). Docket No. 1. Plaintiff has shown an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 1) will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Clerk’s Office is further INSTRUCTED to file the complaint on the docket. II. Screening the Complaint Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Litigants are required to provide a short, plain statement of their claims setting forth coherently who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery, McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996). Although the pleadings of pro se litigants are construed liberally, they must still comply with this requirement. E.g., Montgomery v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dept., 2014 WL 3724213, at *3 n.3 (D. Nev. July 28, 2014). When litigants have not complied with the dictates of Rule 8(a), courts may dismiss the complaint sua sponte. See, e.g., Apothio, LLC v. Kern Cnty., 599 F. Supp. 3d 983, 1000 (E.D. Cal. 2022) (collecting cases). The complaint fails to comply with Rule 8. It appears to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. The “statement of facts,” however, is very sparse. Docket No. 1-1 at 3-4. That section consists largely of listing legal sources and making conclusory statements. Although not clear, it appears the alleged incident involves Plaintiff requesting photographs, being arrested, and being injured. The factual allegations presented do not set forth sufficient detail showing an entitlement to relief or elucidating the alleged circumstances, the theory of the claims, and the relief sought.1 In addition, the complaint is not signed by Plaintiff as is required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); but see Docket No. 1-1 at 7. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. III. Conclusion Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall not be required to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. This order granting leave to proceed in forma

1 The section for demanding relief is left blank. See Docket No. 1-1 at 7. ] pauperis shall not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government expense. 2. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to file Plaintiffs complaint on the docket. 3. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until November 7, 2025, to file an amended complaint, if the noted deficiencies can be corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (.e., the original complaint) in order to make the amended complaint complete. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 4. Failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline set above will result in the recommended dismissal of this case. Dated: October 17, 2025 Le Nancy J. Koppeé United States Magistrate Judge