Michelle Brooks v. Natalie Hernandez Policorpo

D. Nevada

Michelle Brooks v. Natalie Hernandez Policorpo

DecidedSeptember 30, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01681

StatusUnknown

This text of Michelle Brooks v. Natalie Hernandez Policorpo (Michelle Brooks v. Natalie Hernandez Policorpo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Michelle Brooks v. Natalie Hernandez Policorpo, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 Michelle Brooks, Case No. 2:25-cv-01681-RFB-NJK 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v.

10 Natalie Hernandez Policorpo, 11 Defendant. 12 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested authority pursuant to 13 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. 14 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 15 Plaintiff filed an affidavit required by § 1915(a). Docket No. 1. Plaintiff has shown an 16 inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the application to 17 proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 1) will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The 18 Clerk’s Office is further INSTRUCTED to file the complaint on the docket. 19 II. Screening the Complaint 20 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 21 complaint pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the 22 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 23 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 24 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 25 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 26 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 27 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 28 1 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint 2 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is 3 essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 4 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim 5 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 6 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, 7 it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 8 of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 9 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the 10 complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 11 Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do 12 not suffice. Id. at 678. Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from 13 conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 14 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 15 by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 16 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 17 Moreover, the Court has a duty to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the 18 dispute before it, an issue it may raise at any time during the proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. 19 P. 12(h)(3). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized 20 by the Constitution and statute. Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004). “A federal court is 21 presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock 22 West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). 23 “The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the case is properly in 24 federal court.” McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing McNutt v. 25 General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). 26 The Court does not find that a sufficient showing has been made in the complaint as to 27 federal subject matter jurisdiction. There are generally two types of subject matter jurisdiction: 28 (1) diversity jurisdiction and (2) federal question jurisdiction. 1 Diversity jurisdiction exists when the plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than all of the 2 defendants, and the claim involves more than $75,000 in controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The 3 complaint provides no basis on which to find diversity jurisdiction. The complaint alleges that 4 both Plaintiff and Defendant reside in Nevada; therefore, it appears that they are both citizens of 5 this state. Further, the complaint also does not on its face put more than $75,000 in controversy. 6 Hence, the complaint does not plead diversity jurisdiction. 7 Federal question jurisdiction exists with respect to “all civil actions arising under the 8 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Cases “arise under” federal 9 law either when federal law creates the cause of action or where the vindication of a right under 10 state law necessarily turns on the construction of federal law. Republican Party of Guam v. 11 Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002). Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists 12 is based on the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only 13 when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 14 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The complaint does not explicitly allege 15 a federal cause of action against Defendant and does not otherwise show that the case necessarily 16 turns on the construction of federal law. Plaintiff’s claims appear to be premised largely on 17 contract principles and eviction procedures, see, e.g., Docket No. 1-1 at 3-6, issues that are 18 generally governed by state law. Hence, the complaint does not plead federal question jurisdiction. 19 In short, the complaint does not provide a basis on which the Court can exercise subject 20 matter jurisdiction over the claims against Defendant. The Court will afford Plaintiff an 21 opportunity to amend if she believes subject matter jurisdiction can be pleaded.1 22 III. Conclusion 23 Accordingly, 24 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is 25 GRANTED. Docket No. 1.

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

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 Michelle Brooks, Case No. 2:25-cv-01681-RFB-NJK 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v.

10 Natalie Hernandez Policorpo, 11 Defendant. 12 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested authority pursuant to 13 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. 14 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 15 Plaintiff filed an affidavit required by § 1915(a). Docket No. 1. Plaintiff has shown an 16 inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the application to 17 proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 1) will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The 18 Clerk’s Office is further INSTRUCTED to file the complaint on the docket. 19 II. Screening the Complaint 20 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 21 complaint pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the 22 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 23 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 24 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 25 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 26 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 27 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 28 1 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint 2 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is 3 essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 4 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim 5 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 6 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, 7 it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 8 of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 9 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the 10 complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 11 Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do 12 not suffice. Id. at 678. Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from 13 conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 14 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 15 by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 16 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 17 Moreover, the Court has a duty to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the 18 dispute before it, an issue it may raise at any time during the proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. 19 P. 12(h)(3). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized 20 by the Constitution and statute. Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004). “A federal court is 21 presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock 22 West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). 23 “The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the case is properly in 24 federal court.” McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing McNutt v. 25 General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). 26 The Court does not find that a sufficient showing has been made in the complaint as to 27 federal subject matter jurisdiction. There are generally two types of subject matter jurisdiction: 28 (1) diversity jurisdiction and (2) federal question jurisdiction. 1 Diversity jurisdiction exists when the plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than all of the 2 defendants, and the claim involves more than $75,000 in controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The 3 complaint provides no basis on which to find diversity jurisdiction. The complaint alleges that 4 both Plaintiff and Defendant reside in Nevada; therefore, it appears that they are both citizens of 5 this state. Further, the complaint also does not on its face put more than $75,000 in controversy. 6 Hence, the complaint does not plead diversity jurisdiction. 7 Federal question jurisdiction exists with respect to “all civil actions arising under the 8 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Cases “arise under” federal 9 law either when federal law creates the cause of action or where the vindication of a right under 10 state law necessarily turns on the construction of federal law. Republican Party of Guam v. 11 Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002). Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists 12 is based on the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only 13 when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 14 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The complaint does not explicitly allege 15 a federal cause of action against Defendant and does not otherwise show that the case necessarily 16 turns on the construction of federal law. Plaintiff’s claims appear to be premised largely on 17 contract principles and eviction procedures, see, e.g., Docket No. 1-1 at 3-6, issues that are 18 generally governed by state law. Hence, the complaint does not plead federal question jurisdiction. 19 In short, the complaint does not provide a basis on which the Court can exercise subject 20 matter jurisdiction over the claims against Defendant. The Court will afford Plaintiff an 21 opportunity to amend if she believes subject matter jurisdiction can be pleaded.1 22 III. Conclusion 23 Accordingly, 24 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is 25 GRANTED. Docket No. 1. 26 27 1 Because the Court is not satisfied that subject matter jurisdiction exists, it will not 28 otherwise screen the amended complaint as to whether any appropriate claims have been stated. ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with leave to 2) amend. Plaintiff will have until October 30, 2025, to file an amended complaint, if the noted 3 deficiencies can be corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed 4] that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) in order to make the amended complaint complete. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes 6] the original complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended complaint be complete in 7| itself without reference to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the 8|| original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, 9] as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 11 Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: September 30, 2025 le. 14 EE a Nancy J. Keppe 15 United States Magistrate Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Michelle Brooks v. Natalie Hernandez Policorpo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michelle-brooks-v-natalie-hernandez-policorpo-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack