Manuel v. Bridge Property Managment

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 22, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01586
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7

8 ANTREZ MANUEL, Case No. 2:22-cv-01586-JAD-NJK 9 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 10 v.

11 BRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested 14 authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff also 15 submitted a complaint. Docket No. 1-1.1 16 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 17 Plaintiff filed the affidavit required by § 1915(a). Docket No. 1. Plaintiff has shown an 18 inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed 19 in forma pauperis will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Clerk’s Office is further 20 INSTRUCTED to file the complaint on the docket. The Court will now review Plaintiff’s 21 complaint. 22 II. Screening the Complaint 23 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 24 complaint pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the 25 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 26 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 27 28 1 The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 1 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 2 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 3 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 4 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 5 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint 6 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is 7 essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 8 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim 9 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 10 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it 11 demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 12 of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 13 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the 14 complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 15 Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do 16 not suffice. Id. at 678. Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from 17 conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 18 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 19 by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 20 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 21 In addition, the Court has a duty to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the 22 dispute before it, an issue it may raise at any time during the proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. 23 P. 12(h)(3). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power 24 authorized by the Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004). “A 25 federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively 26 appears.” Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 27 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). “The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the 28 1 case is properly in federal court.” McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) 2 (citing McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). 3 In this case, Plaintiff’s complaint consists of a single assertion that he seeks $38,000 for 4 rent, mental damages, and physical damages. Docket No. 1-1 at 1.2 Such an assertion fails to state 5 a claim or provide the basic notice required for a proper complaint. A complaint must complaint 6 provide the defendant with “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it 7 rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). A complaint 8 must contain “sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the 9 opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Caltex Plastics, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 824 10 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 2016). The instant complaint does not meet these standards. 11 Moreover, this case appears to arise out of a landlord-tenant dispute regarding rent. See 12 Docket No. 1-1; see also Docket No. 3. No showing has been made that this dispute involves a 13 federal question or that the requirements for diversity jurisdiction exist. Hence, it appears that 14 subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. 15 In light of the above, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. If Plaintiff 16 can cure the deficiencies identified above, he must file an amended complaint by October 21, 2022. 17 III. Conclusion 18 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 19 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall not be 20 required to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion 21 without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of a 22 security therefor. This order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall not 23 extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government expense. 24 2. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to file Plaintiff’s complaint on the docket. 25 26

27 2 The complaint attaches exhibits, which consist largely of legal standards, but also of a complaint that Plaintiff appears to have made against non-party Tesla. See Docket No. 1-3. These 28 exhibits do not further illuminate the nature or basis of the claim brought here. ] 3. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until October 2 21, 2022, to file an amended complaint, if the noted deficiencies can be corrected. If 3 Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot 4 refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) in order to make the amended 5 complaint complete. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint 6 supersedes the original complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended 7 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff 8 files an amended complaint, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the 9 case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and 10 the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 11 4. Failure to comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of this 12 case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: September 22, 2022 15 77, ae Nancy J. Koppe\, 16 United Statés-Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28