Pritchett v. Nguyen & Lay Attorneys at Law

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 12, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00410
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4 * * *

5 Shawn Pritchett Case No. 2:25-cv-00410-APG-BNW

6 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER AND 7 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

8 Nguyen & Law Attorneys at Law, et. al,

9 Defendants.

10 11 Pro se plaintiff Shawn Pritchett brings several claims based on allegations that he received 12 a substandard legal representation during his habeas corpus case. Plaintiff submitted the affidavit 13 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees or costs or give security for 14 them. Accordingly, the court will grant his request to proceed in forma pauperis. The court now 15 screens his complaint. 16 I. ANALYSIS 17 A. Screening standard 18 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 20 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 21 granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard 23 for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 24 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 25 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 26 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 27 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 1 his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 3 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of 4 material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler 5 Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 6 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff 7 must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 8 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. 9 Unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se 10 plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s 11 deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 12 B. Screening the complaint 13 Plaintiff explains he wishes to bring suit against Defendants based on Nev. Rev. Stat. 14 § 11.207, which governs malpractice actions. He identifies 12 claims arising from alleged acts 15 and omissions by Defendants while representing him in a habeas corpus matter. None of these 16 claims arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” and there is no 17 diversity of citizenship between the parties. As a result, this Court recommends that this action be 18 dismissed without leave to amend in this Court. 19 “Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power 20 authorized by Constitution and statute.” K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024, 21 1027 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). Federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all 22 civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1331. Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases 24 “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is 25 between “citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “Section 1332 requires complete 26 diversity of citizenship; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the 27 defendants.” Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). Federal courts 1 Inc., 360 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2004). A court may raise the question of subject-matter 2 jurisdiction sua sponte, and it must dismiss a case if it determines it lacks subject-matter 3 jurisdiction. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 4 Here, Plaintiff does not allege facts invoking the court’s jurisdiction. He alleges only 5 claims based on state claims and therefore does not invoke the court’s federal-question 6 jurisdiction. Additionally, the parties are both citizens of Nevada. Thus, even liberally construing 7 his complaint, he does not allege facts invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction. 8 As the party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of 9 establishing jurisdiction exists. See Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1040 (9th Cir. 2015). The court 10 therefore will recommend that this case be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, 11 without leave to amend. His claims should be pursued in state court. 12 / / 13 / / 14 / / 15 / / 16 / / 17 / / 18 / / 19 / / 20 / / 21 / / 22 / / 23 / / 24 / / 25 / / 26 / / 27 / / 1 |) UL. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed Jn 3 || Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to 4 || conclusion without prepaying fees or costs or giving security for them. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court must detach and separately file 6 || Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 7 IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED without leave to 8 || amend. 9 || I. NOTICE 10 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned 11 || to this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation 12 || may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being 13 || served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely 14 || objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 15 |] 1153, 1157 (Oth Cir. 1991). 16 17 DATED: March 11, 2025 18 19 GK 9 ancO □□ BRENDA WEKSLER □ 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28