Madden v. Molasky Corporate Center

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 21, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01227
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Germani Marie Madden (Cannady), Case No. 2:22-cv-01227-JAD-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Molasky Corporate Center c/o Anna Juarez, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested 12 authority to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff also submitted a complaint. (ECF 13 No. 1-1). Because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s application is complete, it grants her application 14 to proceed in forma pauperis. However, because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does 15 not properly assert sufficient facts, it dismisses her complaint with leave to amend. Because the 16 case has not yet passed screening, the Court also denies Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order 17 as premature. (ECF No. 4). 18 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 19 Plaintiff filed the affidavit required by § 1915(a). (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has shown an 20 inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed 21 in forma pauperis will be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court will now review 22 Plaintiff’s complaint. 23 II. Screening the Complaint 24 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 25 complaint under § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is 26 legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 27 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 1 the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 2 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 3 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 4 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a 5 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 6 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 7 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of 8 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 9 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual 10 allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the 11 elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. 12 Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations 13 contained in the complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 14 556 U.S. at 679. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory 15 allegations, do not suffice. Id. at 678. Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not 16 crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 17 U.S. at 570. Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal 18 pleadings drafted by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding 19 that liberal construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 20 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by 21 the Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004). Under 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the 23 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Cases “arise under” federal law either when 24 federal law creates the cause of action or where the vindication of a right under state law 25 necessarily turns on the construction of federal law. Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 26 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002). Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists is based on the 27 “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a 1 federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 2 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 3 A. The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. 4 Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants said I was trespassing…stopped me from making my 5 appointment…called the police unnecessarily…[and] created an opportunity for my abusive 6 counterpart to access me and my information some how [sic].” (ECF No. 1-1). She claims that 7 the incident resulted in lost earnings, lost economic opportunities, mental anguish, emotional 8 distress, loss of enjoyment of life, impairment to her reputation, and humiliation. (Id.). 9 Otherwise, Plaintiff provides no facts. Plaintiff’s complaint does not provide enough factual 10 detail to constitute a claim on which relief can be granted. While the Court construes pro se 11 complaints liberally, it cannot find that Plaintiff has alleged a claim on which relief can be 12 granted with so few facts. 13 B. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order. 14 Because Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet passed screening, her motion for a protective 15 order is premature. (ECF No. 4). In her motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants to 16 adhere to procedures in discovery to protect Plaintiff’s personal information. (Id.). But discovery 17 has not yet started, and no defendants have been served. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s motion 18 as premature. 19 20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 21 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted. Plaintiff shall not be required to pre-pay the filing fee. 22 Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of 23 any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. This order granting leave to 24 proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at 25 government expense. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to file Plaintiff’s 27 complaint (ECF No. 1-1) on the docket but shall not issue summons. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without 2 prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with leave to amend. 3 Plaintiff will have until October 20, 2022 to file an amended complaint if the noted deficiencies 4 can be corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the Court 5 cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) to make the amended complaint 6 complete. This is because, generally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 7 Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended complaint be complete without reference to any 8 prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original complaint no longer 9 serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, 10 each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Failure to 11 comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of this case. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order (ECF No. 4) 13 is denied without prejudice. 14 15 DATED: September 20, 2022 16 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27