Pritchett v. Nguyen & Lay Attorneys at Law

Opinion

* * *

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

Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER AND v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Nguyen & Law Attorneys at Law, et. al,

Defendants.

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