Michael S. McDonald v. Catholic Charities

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 17, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01271
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Michael S. McDonald, Case No. 2:25-cv-01271-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Catholic Charities, 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 (meaning, without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 4). 13 Plaintiff also submitted a complaint. (ECF No. 1-1). Because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s 14 application is complete, it grants his application to proceed in forma pauperis. However, because 15 the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted, 16 it dismisses his complaint with leave to amend. 17 I. In forma pauperis application. 18 Plaintiff filed the affidavit required by § 1915(a). (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff has shown an 19 inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed 20 in forma pauperis will be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court will now review 21 Plaintiff’s complaint. 22 II. Legal standard for screening. 23 As Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, this Court will therefore 24 screen the complaint under § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if 25 the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 26 granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915(e)(2). When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given 1 the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. 2 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 3 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a 4 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 5 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 6 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of 7 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. 8 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual 9 allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the 10 elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. 11 Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations 12 contained in the complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 13 556 U.S. at 679. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory 14 allegations, do not suffice. Id. at 678. Where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the 15 line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 16 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings 17 drafted by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 18 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 19 III. Screening the complaint. 20 The basis of Plaintiff’s complaint is that a security supervisor at a Catholic Charities 21 homeless shelter kicked him out for sixty days. Plaintiff’s complaint suffers from certain defects. 22 So, the Court dismisses it without prejudice and with leave to amend. 23 First, it is unclear who Plaintiff is suing. Plaintiff lists Catholic Charities in the caption of 24 his complaint. However, when listing Defendants Plaintiff lists a Doe Security Supervisor for 25 Catholic Charities. In any amended complaint, Plaintiff must clearly identify the Defendant that 26 he is suing. 27 Second, Plaintiff does not establish this Court’s jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of 1 Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have original 2 jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 3 States.” Cases “arise under” federal law either when federal law creates the cause of action or 4 where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turns on the construction of federal 5 law. Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002). Whether 6 federal-question jurisdiction exists is based on the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides 7 that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the 8 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 9 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions in 10 diversity cases “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where 11 the matter is between “citizens of different states.” Generally speaking, diversity jurisdiction 12 exists only where there is “complete diversity” among the parties; each of the plaintiffs must be a 13 citizen of a different state than each of the defendants. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 14 (1996). 15 Here, Plaintiff checks the box for federal question jurisdiction, but then cites California’s 16 Unruh Act, California Civil Code Section 51, which is a state law, not a federal law. Plaintiff 17 also checks the box for diversity jurisdiction, but Plaintiff does not explain in which state the 18 Defendant resides. So, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff lives in a different state than 19 the Defendant. 20 Given these issues, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and with 21 leave to amend. 22 23 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 24 pauperis (ECF No. 4) is granted. Plaintiff shall not be required to pre-pay the filing fee. 25 Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of 26 any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. This order granting leave to 27 proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to file Plaintiff’s 2 complaint (ECF No. 1-1) on the docket but shall not issue summons. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without 4 prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with leave to amend. 5 Plaintiff will have until November 17, 2025, to file an amended complaint if the noted 6 deficiencies can be corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed 7 that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) to make the amended 8 complaint complete. This is because, generally, an amended complaint supersedes the original 9 complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended complaint be complete without reference 10 to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original complaint no 11 longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 12 complaint, each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 13 Failure to comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of this case. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 15 a copy of this order. 16 17 DATED: October 17, 2025 18 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27