1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 * * *
4 Russell Martin, Case No. 2:25-cv-00636-APG-BNW
5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.
7 Robert Moos, et al.,
8 Defendants.
9 10 Plaintiff filed a complaint and moves to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff 11 submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) showing an inability to prepay fees or 12 costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the Court will grant his request to proceed in forma 13 pauperis. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 14 I. DISCUSSION 15 A. Screening Standard 16 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 17 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 18 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 19 granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. Dismissal 20 for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for failure to state a claim 21 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 22 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 23 true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 24 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only dismiss them “if it 25 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 26 would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 27 556 U.S. at 678). 1 B. Screening the Complaint 2 Plaintiff’s complaint violates Rule 8. ECF No. 1-1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is 4 entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each 6 limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). “[E]ach claim 7 founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.” Id. 8 Plaintiff’s complaint is 201 pages and does not include exhibits. ECF No. 1-1. This is far 9 from the “short, “plain,” “simple,” “concise,” and “direct” pleading requirements. Plaintiff names 10 at least 23 defendants and lists many causes of action, often 5 to 20+ claims and subclaims, 11 against each defendant. Id. Plaintiff does not state his claims in numbered paragraphs nor does he 12 limit each paragraph to a single set of circumstances. Id. Plaintiff does not separate his causes of 13 action by occurrence. Id. He often repeats the same claims and facts. Id. Even liberally construing 14 the complaint, this Court is unable to evaluate whether Plaintiff states any claims for relief. 15 Therefore, this Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend to file a more 16 manageable complaint. See Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45 (2016) (holding that the Supreme 17 Court “has long recognized that a district court possesses inherent powers that are ‘governed not 18 by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as 19 to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’”). Indeed, other courts in the Ninth 20 Circuit have dismissed pro se complaints with leave to amend for being too long in light of the 21 types of claims raised. Thomas v. Bick, No. 2:16-CV-1425-TLNCKDP, 2016 WL 4553536 (E.D. 22 Cal. Sept. 1, 2016) (dismissing 45-page complaint with leave to amend); see also Knapp v. Cate, 23 No. 1:08-CV-01779-SKO PC, 2010 WL 3521871 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2010), on reconsideration in 24 part, No. 1:08-CV-01779-SKO PC, 2011 WL 666763 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2011) (dismissing 66- 25 page complaint with leave to amend). This Court has similarly found that a 68-page complaint 26 was too long. Bradford v. Sisolak, No. 2:20-CV-00871-APG-BNW, 2021 WL 1969438 (D. Nev. 27 May 14, 2021). 1 Here, Plaintiff’s 201-page complaint is much longer than the complaints this Court and 2 others have dismissed. Additionally, Plaintiff’s complaint is repetitive, and, even considering the 3 types of claims raised, it is far too lengthy. This Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint with leave 4 to amend. Should Plaintiff choose to amend, he must carefully read the instructions below. 5 C. Leave to Amend Instructions 6 First, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be short and plain. The simpler and more 7 concise Plaintiff's complaint, the easier it is for the Court to understand and screen it. As 8 discussed above, the Federal Rules require this. Plaintiff should strive not to exceed 20 pages. 9 Second, the amended complaint must be organized by causes of action. Plaintiff should 10 number each cause of action and state which defendants the cause of action is against. For 11 example, “First Cause of Action: Malicious Prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against 12 Defendants Moos and Villanueva”.1 Under each cause of action, Plaintiff should state the facts 13 that support this claim. The facts should be numbered by paragraph. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 14 Plaintiff should not list “subclaims”. Each cause of action, claim, or “subclaim” should be listed 15 separately. 16 Third, this Court has identified the following issues with the complaint: 17 • Plaintiff improperly joins defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Plaintiff joins 18 approximately 23 defendants, including Las Vegas Athletic Club, Nevada State 19 Bar Association, government officials, judges, attorneys, and police officers. ECF 20 No. 1-1. Under Rule 20, “[p]ersons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants 21 if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the 22 alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or 23 series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common 24 to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). “The same 25 transaction requirement of Rule 20 refers to similarity in the factual background of 26 27 1 This is an example only and not a suggestion of what claims Plaintiff should bring against which 1 a claim; claims that arise out of a systematic pattern of events and have a very 2 definite logical relationship.” Davies v.
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 Russell Martin, Case No. 2:25-cv-00636-APG-BNW
5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.
7 Robert Moos, et al.,
8 Defendants.
9 10 Plaintiff filed a complaint and moves to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff 11 submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) showing an inability to prepay fees or 12 costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the Court will grant his request to proceed in forma 13 pauperis. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 14 I. DISCUSSION 15 A. Screening Standard 16 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 17 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 18 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 19 granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. Dismissal 20 for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for failure to state a claim 21 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 22 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 23 true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 24 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only dismiss them “if it 25 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 26 would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 27 556 U.S. at 678). 1 B. Screening the Complaint 2 Plaintiff’s complaint violates Rule 8. ECF No. 1-1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is 4 entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each 6 limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). “[E]ach claim 7 founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.” Id. 8 Plaintiff’s complaint is 201 pages and does not include exhibits. ECF No. 1-1. This is far 9 from the “short, “plain,” “simple,” “concise,” and “direct” pleading requirements. Plaintiff names 10 at least 23 defendants and lists many causes of action, often 5 to 20+ claims and subclaims, 11 against each defendant. Id. Plaintiff does not state his claims in numbered paragraphs nor does he 12 limit each paragraph to a single set of circumstances. Id. Plaintiff does not separate his causes of 13 action by occurrence. Id. He often repeats the same claims and facts. Id. Even liberally construing 14 the complaint, this Court is unable to evaluate whether Plaintiff states any claims for relief. 15 Therefore, this Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend to file a more 16 manageable complaint. See Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45 (2016) (holding that the Supreme 17 Court “has long recognized that a district court possesses inherent powers that are ‘governed not 18 by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as 19 to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’”). Indeed, other courts in the Ninth 20 Circuit have dismissed pro se complaints with leave to amend for being too long in light of the 21 types of claims raised. Thomas v. Bick, No. 2:16-CV-1425-TLNCKDP, 2016 WL 4553536 (E.D. 22 Cal. Sept. 1, 2016) (dismissing 45-page complaint with leave to amend); see also Knapp v. Cate, 23 No. 1:08-CV-01779-SKO PC, 2010 WL 3521871 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2010), on reconsideration in 24 part, No. 1:08-CV-01779-SKO PC, 2011 WL 666763 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2011) (dismissing 66- 25 page complaint with leave to amend). This Court has similarly found that a 68-page complaint 26 was too long. Bradford v. Sisolak, No. 2:20-CV-00871-APG-BNW, 2021 WL 1969438 (D. Nev. 27 May 14, 2021). 1 Here, Plaintiff’s 201-page complaint is much longer than the complaints this Court and 2 others have dismissed. Additionally, Plaintiff’s complaint is repetitive, and, even considering the 3 types of claims raised, it is far too lengthy. This Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint with leave 4 to amend. Should Plaintiff choose to amend, he must carefully read the instructions below. 5 C. Leave to Amend Instructions 6 First, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be short and plain. The simpler and more 7 concise Plaintiff's complaint, the easier it is for the Court to understand and screen it. As 8 discussed above, the Federal Rules require this. Plaintiff should strive not to exceed 20 pages. 9 Second, the amended complaint must be organized by causes of action. Plaintiff should 10 number each cause of action and state which defendants the cause of action is against. For 11 example, “First Cause of Action: Malicious Prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against 12 Defendants Moos and Villanueva”.1 Under each cause of action, Plaintiff should state the facts 13 that support this claim. The facts should be numbered by paragraph. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 14 Plaintiff should not list “subclaims”. Each cause of action, claim, or “subclaim” should be listed 15 separately. 16 Third, this Court has identified the following issues with the complaint: 17 • Plaintiff improperly joins defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Plaintiff joins 18 approximately 23 defendants, including Las Vegas Athletic Club, Nevada State 19 Bar Association, government officials, judges, attorneys, and police officers. ECF 20 No. 1-1. Under Rule 20, “[p]ersons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants 21 if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the 22 alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or 23 series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common 24 to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). “The same 25 transaction requirement of Rule 20 refers to similarity in the factual background of 26 27 1 This is an example only and not a suggestion of what claims Plaintiff should bring against which 1 a claim; claims that arise out of a systematic pattern of events and have a very 2 definite logical relationship.” Davies v. Reynoso, No. 2:24-CV-0485-DJC-DMC-P, 3 2024 WL 3378996, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2024) (cleaned up). Put differently, 4 Plaintiff may only join defendants when the claims against them arise out of the 5 same facts and have a very definite relationship. For example, Plaintiff’s claims 6 against Las Vegas Athletic Club do not appear to have a very definite relationship 7 with the named public defenders or judges. Plaintiff should think critically about 8 whether all defendants may be sued in one action, or whether Plaintiff needs to file 9 separate lawsuits. 10 • Plaintiff may not sue defendants—namely judges, prosecuting attorneys, and 11 defense attorneys—who are immune from suit. State prosecutors are entitled to 12 absolute prosecutorial immunity for acts taken in their official capacity. See Kalina 13 v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 123–25 (1997); Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 14 269–70 (1993). Judges functioning in their official capacity generally are entitled 15 to absolute immunity from suit. Brown v. California Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 16 750 (9th Cir. 2009). Defense attorneys are immune from § 1983 claims when 17 performing a lawyer’s traditional functions. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 18 312, 318–19 (1981). 19 • Plaintiff cannot allege claims under criminal statutes. Plaintiff impermissibly 20 asserts claims under the following criminal statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs 21 Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1503, 1512–15 (Obstruction of Justice, Witness/Evidence 22 Tampering), 18 U.S.C. § 1961–63 (Criminal RICO Act), 18 U.S.C. § 242 23 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law), 18 U.S.C. § 3 (Accessory after the 24 fact), 18 U.S.C. § 1346 (Honest Services Fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail Fraud), 25 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Fraud by Wire, Radio, or Television), 18 U.S.C. § 371 26 (Conspiracy), and other allegations of “criminal misconduct”. ECF No. 1-1. 27 Criminal statutes do not confer a private cause of action unless Congress specifies 1 18 (1979) (Rehnquist, J., concurring); see also Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 2 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). There is no evidence of legislative intent to create a private 3 cause of action relating to these criminal statutes. 4 • Each cause of action must be clearly stated and grounded in law. For example, the 5 blue wall of silence (code of silence) is not a cause of action. 6 To be clear, the above bullet points are issues the Court observed upon first glance. 7 Plaintiff’s complaint may contain additional issues that this Court has not identified. 8 Lastly, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete in and of itself. If Plaintiff 9 chooses to file an amended complaint, he is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the 10 original complaint and, thus, the amended complaint must be complete without reference to the 11 prior complaint. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 12 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that “[t]he fact that a party was named in the original complaint is 13 irrelevant; an amended pleading supersedes the original”); see also Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 14 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that for claims dismissed with prejudice, a plaintiff is not 15 required to reallege such claims in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal). 16 Plaintiff’s amended complaint must contain all claims, defendants, and factual allegations that 17 Plaintiff may permissibly pursue in this lawsuit. 18 / / 19 / / 20 / / 21 / / 22 / / 23 / / 24 / / 25 / / 26 / / 27 / / 1 Il. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma 3 || pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed 5 || without prejudice and with leave to amend. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court detach and file the complaint 7 || at ECF No. 1-1 on the docket. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, he must 9 || do so by May 14, 2025. If Plaintiff chooses not to amend his complaint by that deadline, this 10 |} Court may recommend that his case be dismissed. 1] 12 DATED: April 14, 2025 13 14 LE gn lea WO ERA BRENDA WEKSLER □ 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28