Mary Jones v. Governor Joe Lombardo, et al.

D. Nevada

Mary Jones v. Governor Joe Lombardo, et al.

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided April 23, 2026·No. 2:26-cv-01239·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 5 6 Mary Jones, Case No. 2:26-cv-01239-MMD-NJK

7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 8 v. [Docket No. 1] 9 Governor Joe Lombardo, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested authority pursuant to 12 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. 13 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 14 Plaintiff filed an affidavit required by § 1915(a). See Docket No. 1. Plaintiff has shown 15 an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application 16 to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Clerk’s Office 17 is further INSTRUCTED to file the complaint (Docket No. 1-1) on the docket. 18 II. Screening the Complaint 19 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 20 complaint pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the 21 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 22 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 23 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 24 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 25 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 26 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 27 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint 28 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is 1 essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 2 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim 3 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 4 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, 5 it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 6 of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 7 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the 8 complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 9 Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do 10 not suffice. Id. at 678. Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from 11 conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 12 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 13 by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 14 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 15 It is well-settled that a federal district court does not have appellate jurisdiction over a state 16 court, whether by direct appeal, mandamus, or otherwise. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 17 413 (1923); see also Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003). Similarly, seeking 18 relief from a denial of unemployment benefits is not properly done in federal court. See, e.g., 19 Zeigler v. DETR – Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, 2022 WL 18863900, at *1 (D. Nev. Mar. 20 21, 2022), adopted, 2022 WL 18863927 (D. Nev. May 10, 2022). 21 In this case, Plaintiff alleges that she was injured on the job, but that her employer violated 22 her light duty assignment. Docket No. 1-1 at 1. Plaintiff alleges that she was then denied 23 unemployment and that her efforts to reverse that decision (by contacting the Governor’s Office 24 and appealing through the state court system) were unsuccessful. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff is seeking 25 $5,032, which may be the unemployment money that she was denied. See Docket No. 1-2.1 26

27 1 The only legal authority specifically identified in complaint is 18 U.S.C. § 242, which is a criminal statute that does not create a private right of action. Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 28 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006). 1 Hence, the allegations in the complaint does not create a justiciable controversy that can be decided 2 in federal court. 3 For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. Although it 4 appears Plaintiff likely cannot cure the deficiencies identified, the Court will provide leave to 5 amend if she believes she can do so. 6 III. Conclusion 7 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 1) is GRANTED. 9 Plaintiff shall not be required to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain 10 this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or 11 costs or the giving of a security therefor. This order granting leave to proceed in forma 12 pauperis shall not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government 13 expense. 14 2. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to file the complaint (Docket No. 1-1) on the 15 docket. 16 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until 17 May 22, 2026, to file an amended complaint, if the noted deficiencies can be corrected. 18 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot 19 refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) in order to make the amended 20 complaint complete. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint 21 supersedes the original complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended 22 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff 23 files an amended complaint, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the 24 case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and 25 the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 26 27 28 1 4. Failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline set above will result in the 2 recommended dismissal of this case. 4 Dated: April 23, 2026 .

Nancy J. Koppe 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 5 6 Mary Jones, Case No. 2:26-cv-01239-MMD-NJK

7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 8 v. [Docket No. 1] 9 Governor Joe Lombardo, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested authority pursuant to 12 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. 13 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 14 Plaintiff filed an affidavit required by § 1915(a). See Docket No. 1. Plaintiff has shown 15 an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application 16 to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Clerk’s Office 17 is further INSTRUCTED to file the complaint (Docket No. 1-1) on the docket. 18 II. Screening the Complaint 19 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 20 complaint pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the 21 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 22 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 23 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 24 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 25 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 26 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 27 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint 28 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is 1 essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 2 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim 3 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 4 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, 5 it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 6 of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 7 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the 8 complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 9 Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do 10 not suffice. Id. at 678. Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from 11 conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 12 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 13 by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 14 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 15 It is well-settled that a federal district court does not have appellate jurisdiction over a state 16 court, whether by direct appeal, mandamus, or otherwise. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 17 413 (1923); see also Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003). Similarly, seeking 18 relief from a denial of unemployment benefits is not properly done in federal court. See, e.g., 19 Zeigler v. DETR – Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, 2022 WL 18863900, at *1 (D. Nev. Mar. 20 21, 2022), adopted, 2022 WL 18863927 (D. Nev. May 10, 2022). 21 In this case, Plaintiff alleges that she was injured on the job, but that her employer violated 22 her light duty assignment. Docket No. 1-1 at 1. Plaintiff alleges that she was then denied 23 unemployment and that her efforts to reverse that decision (by contacting the Governor’s Office 24 and appealing through the state court system) were unsuccessful. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff is seeking 25 $5,032, which may be the unemployment money that she was denied. See Docket No. 1-2.1 26

27 1 The only legal authority specifically identified in complaint is 18 U.S.C. § 242, which is a criminal statute that does not create a private right of action. Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 28 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006). 1 Hence, the allegations in the complaint does not create a justiciable controversy that can be decided 2 in federal court. 3 For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. Although it 4 appears Plaintiff likely cannot cure the deficiencies identified, the Court will provide leave to 5 amend if she believes she can do so. 6 III. Conclusion 7 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 1) is GRANTED. 9 Plaintiff shall not be required to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain 10 this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or 11 costs or the giving of a security therefor. This order granting leave to proceed in forma 12 pauperis shall not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government 13 expense. 14 2. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to file the complaint (Docket No. 1-1) on the 15 docket. 16 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until 17 May 22, 2026, to file an amended complaint, if the noted deficiencies can be corrected. 18 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot 19 refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) in order to make the amended 20 complaint complete. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint 21 supersedes the original complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended 22 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff 23 files an amended complaint, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the 24 case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and 25 the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 26 27 28 1 4. Failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline set above will result in the 2 recommended dismissal of this case. 4 Dated: April 23, 2026 .

Nancy J. Koppe 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Mary Jones v. Governor Joe Lombardo, et al., (D. Nev. 2026).

Pincite

Mary Jones v. Governor Joe Lombardo, et al. (Mary Jones v. Governor Joe Lombardo, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related