Lee v. State of Nevada

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 BENJAMIN DAN LEE, Case No. 2:25-cv-01022-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 STATE OF NEVADA,

8 Defendant.

9 10 I. Discussion 11 On June 12, 2025, the Court entered a Screening Order granting Plaintiff’s Application to 12 Proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint in part, with prejudice, and in part 13 without prejudice but with leave to amend. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff was given through and including 14 July 10, 2025 to file an amended complaint. Id. The form complaint and instructions for filing the 15 same were mailed to Plaintiff with the Court’s Order. Id. Further, the Court explained that if 16 Plaintiff chose to file an amended complaint, that filing had to contain “a short and plain statement 17 of facts describing the specifics that underlies Plaintiff’s claims,” including facts supporting his 18 claims of harassment by a then-unidentified police officer. Id. 19 Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on July 7, 2025. ECF No. 6. While the Amended 20 Complaint identifies a North Las Vegas police officer by name, the submission alleges no facts at 21 all. Id. Indeed, the section of the Amended Complaint set aside for factual allegations is blank. Id. 22 at 4. No claims for relief are asserted and no relief is identified. Id. Thus, Plaintiff states no claim 23 arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.1 Plaintiff also does not establish a basis 24 for diversity jurisdiction as all parties are identified as located in Las Vegas, Nevada.2 Id. at 1-2. 25 26

27 1 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a 1 Federal courts have the authority to determine their own jurisdiction. Special Investments, 2 Inc. v. Aero Air, Inc., 360 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2004). As the party asking the federal court to 3 exercise jurisdiction, Plaintiff “bears the burden of proving that the case is properly in federal court.” 4 McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing McNutt v. General Motors 5 Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). In the absence of any claims, there is no basis to 6 exercise jurisdiction over this dispute. Plaintiff’s concerns can be raised in state court if he wishes 7 to pursue them, but there is no basis for this Court to exercise jurisdiction. In the absence of 8 jurisdiction, it is not an abuse of discretion to dismiss. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 9 (9th Cir. 1995); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). 10 II. Order 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) is 12 the operative complaint in this case. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) is dismissed in 14 its entirety without prejudice and without leave to amend in federal court. Plaintiff may choose to 15 pursue claims in state court given a dismissal without prejudice. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment 17 accordingly and close this matter. No other documents may be filed in this now closed case. 18 Dated this 21st day of July, 2025. 19

20 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27