Moody v. Malerba

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02079
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 Randy Scott Moody, Case No. 2:24-cv-02079-CDS-BNW

7 Plaintiff SCREENING ORDER 8 v.

9 Marilynn Roberge Malerba,

10 Defendant 11

12 13 Before the court is pro se plaintiff’s initiating document. ECF No. 1. The court screens 14 plaintiff’s complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 15 I. Analysis 16 In screening a complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that 17 are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary 18 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is 19 frivolous if it contains “claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless,” such as “claims 20 describing fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). 21 Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for failure to 22 state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 23 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual 24 matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft v. 25 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 26 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 27 his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 1 Here, even liberally construing plaintiff's allegations, the Court finds that plaintiff's 2 allegations describe fantastic and delusional scenarios and lack any meaningful facts to support 3 his legal conclusions. Thus, plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The 4 Court therefore will recommend dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for the 5 Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. 6 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the document must be titled “Amended 7 Complaint.” The amended complaint must contain a short and plain statement describing the 8 underlying case, the defendant’s involvement in the case, and the approximate dates of its 9 involvement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a 10 flexible pleading standard, Plaintiff still must give a defendant fair notice of the Plaintiff’s claims 11 against it and Plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. 12 The amended complaint also must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for 13 the court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Regarding jurisdiction, Plaintiff is advised 14 that “[f]ederal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power 15 authorized by Constitution and statute.” K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024, 16 1027 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). Federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all 17 civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 18 1331. Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where 19 the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between 20 “citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “Section 1332 requires complete diversity of 21 citizenship; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the 22 defendants.” Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). Additionally, 23 Plaintiff is advised that if she files an amended complaint, the original complaint no longer serves 24 any function in this case. As such, the amended complaint must be complete in and of itself 25 without reference to prior pleadings or other documents. The Court cannot refer to a prior 26 pleading or other documents to make Plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. 27 1 || IL. Conclusion 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with 3 || leave to amend. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the date of this 5 || order to file an amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a 6 || recommendation that this case be dismissed. 7 8 DATED: January 14, 2025. 9 10 Fant United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28