1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 * * *
4 Brandon Dale Lowery, Case No. 2:23-cv-1416-JAD-BNW
5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.
7 Fusion Center/ Homeland Security, et al.,
8 Defendants.
9 10 Pro se Plaintiff Brandon Lowery brings this lawsuit and moves to proceed in forma 11 pauperis (IFP). See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 12 1915(a)(1) showing an inability to prepay fees or costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the 13 Court will grant his request to proceed in forma pauperis. The court now screens Plaintiff’s 14 complaint. 15 I. ANALYSIS 16 A. Screening standard 17 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 19 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 20 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for 22 failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 23 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 24 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 25 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 26 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 27 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 Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain sufficient information for the Court to assess 14 whether he can state a claim. Plaintiff’s complaint contains only a few factual allegations. See 15 ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff states he has video supporting his claims and that he has lost everything 16 based on the illegal acts of the named defendants. Id. As a result of these bare allegations, 17 Plaintiff seeks millions of dollars in damages. Id. 18 Even liberally construing Plaintiff’s complaint, it does not contain sufficient factual 19 allegations for the Court to assess whether Plaintiff can state a claim. Accordingly, the Court will 20 dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. To help Plaintiff file a 21 properly formatted complaint, the Court advises Plaintiff of the following requirements under the 22 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 23 First, Plaintiff is advised that he must specify which claims he is alleging against which 24 defendants. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, 25 Plaintiff still must give defendants fair notice of each of the claims he is alleging against each 26 defendant. Specifically, he must allege facts showing how each named defendant is involved and 27 the approximate dates of their involvement. Put another way, Plaintiff should tell the Court, in 1 the framework of a complaint, they must be supported with factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 2 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 3 Second, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be short and plain. The simpler and more 4 concise Plaintiff’s complaint, the easier it is for the Court to understand and screen it. The Federal 5 Rules also require this. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, Plaintiff’s amended complaint 6 must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to 7 relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. 8 Civ. P. 8(d)(1). “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited 9 as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). “[E]ach claim 10 founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.” Id. 11 Third, Plaintiff may not raise multiple unrelated claims in a single lawsuit. The Federal 12 Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a litigant to raise unrelated claims involving different 13 defendants in a single action. A basic lawsuit is a single claim against a single defendant. Federal 14 Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple claims to the lawsuit when those 15 claims are against the same defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) allows a plaintiff to 16 add multiple parties to a lawsuit where the right to relief arises out of the “same transaction, 17 occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A). “However, 18 unrelated claims that involve different defendants must be brought in separate lawsuits.” Bryant v. 19 Romero, No. 1:12-CV-02074-DLB PC, 2013 WL 5923108, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2013) (citing 20 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)). This rule is intended to avoid confusion, 21 which arises out of bloated lawsuits. 22 Lastly, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete in and of itself. If Plaintiff 23 chooses to file an amended complaint, he is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the 24 original complaint and, thus, the amended complaint must be complete by itself. See Hal Roach 25 Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 * * *
4 Brandon Dale Lowery, Case No. 2:23-cv-1416-JAD-BNW
5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.
7 Fusion Center/ Homeland Security, et al.,
8 Defendants.
9 10 Pro se Plaintiff Brandon Lowery brings this lawsuit and moves to proceed in forma 11 pauperis (IFP). See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 12 1915(a)(1) showing an inability to prepay fees or costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the 13 Court will grant his request to proceed in forma pauperis. The court now screens Plaintiff’s 14 complaint. 15 I. ANALYSIS 16 A. Screening standard 17 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 19 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 20 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for 22 failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 23 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 24 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 25 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 26 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 27 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 Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain sufficient information for the Court to assess 14 whether he can state a claim. Plaintiff’s complaint contains only a few factual allegations. See 15 ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff states he has video supporting his claims and that he has lost everything 16 based on the illegal acts of the named defendants. Id. As a result of these bare allegations, 17 Plaintiff seeks millions of dollars in damages. Id. 18 Even liberally construing Plaintiff’s complaint, it does not contain sufficient factual 19 allegations for the Court to assess whether Plaintiff can state a claim. Accordingly, the Court will 20 dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. To help Plaintiff file a 21 properly formatted complaint, the Court advises Plaintiff of the following requirements under the 22 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 23 First, Plaintiff is advised that he must specify which claims he is alleging against which 24 defendants. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, 25 Plaintiff still must give defendants fair notice of each of the claims he is alleging against each 26 defendant. Specifically, he must allege facts showing how each named defendant is involved and 27 the approximate dates of their involvement. Put another way, Plaintiff should tell the Court, in 1 the framework of a complaint, they must be supported with factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 2 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 3 Second, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be short and plain. The simpler and more 4 concise Plaintiff’s complaint, the easier it is for the Court to understand and screen it. The Federal 5 Rules also require this. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, Plaintiff’s amended complaint 6 must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to 7 relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. 8 Civ. P. 8(d)(1). “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited 9 as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). “[E]ach claim 10 founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.” Id. 11 Third, Plaintiff may not raise multiple unrelated claims in a single lawsuit. The Federal 12 Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a litigant to raise unrelated claims involving different 13 defendants in a single action. A basic lawsuit is a single claim against a single defendant. Federal 14 Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple claims to the lawsuit when those 15 claims are against the same defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) allows a plaintiff to 16 add multiple parties to a lawsuit where the right to relief arises out of the “same transaction, 17 occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A). “However, 18 unrelated claims that involve different defendants must be brought in separate lawsuits.” Bryant v. 19 Romero, No. 1:12-CV-02074-DLB PC, 2013 WL 5923108, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2013) (citing 20 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)). This rule is intended to avoid confusion, 21 which arises out of bloated lawsuits. 22 Lastly, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete in and of itself. If Plaintiff 23 chooses to file an amended complaint, he is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the 24 original complaint and, thus, the amended complaint must be complete by itself. See Hal Roach 25 Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that 26 “[t]he fact that a party was named in the original complaint is irrelevant; an amended pleading 27 supersedes the original”); see also Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) 1 || claims in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal). Plaintiff's amended 2 || complaint must contain all claims, defendants, and factual allegations that Plaintiff wishes to 3 || pursue in this lawsuit. Moreover, Plaintiff must file his amended complaint on this Court’s 4 || approved form, which the Clerk of Court will send Plaintiff. 5 || IL. CONCLUSION 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma 7 || pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must detach and separately file 9 || Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, he 12 || must do so by October 9, 2023. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation 13 || that this case be dismissed. 14 DATED: September 18, 2023 15 16 Kx pn la WEEN BRENDA WEKSLER 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28