1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * RICHIE ACCIME, Case No. 3:25-CV-00701-MMD-CLB 4 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 5 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE1 v. 6 CARES CAMPUS, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Before the Court is Plaintiff Richie Accime’s (“Accime”) application to proceed in 10 forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), and civil rights complaint (ECF No. 1-1). For the reasons 11 stated below, the Court recommends that Accime’s in forma pauperis application, (ECF 12 No. 1), be granted, and his complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), be dismissed, with prejudice. 13 I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 14 A person may be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if the 15 person “submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] 16 possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefore. 17 Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant’s belief 18 that the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 19 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (stating 28 U.S.C. § 1915 applies to all actions filed 20 IFP, not just prisoner actions). 21 Pursuant to Local Rule LSR 1-1: “Any person who is unable to prepay the fees in 22 a civil case may apply to the court for leave to proceed [IFP]. The application must be 23 made on the form provided by the court and must include a financial affidavit disclosing 24 the applicant’s income, assets, expenses, and liabilities.” 25 “[T]he supporting affidavit [must] state the facts as to [the] affiant’s poverty with 26 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938,
27 1 This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M. Du, United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate 1 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A litigant need not “be 2 absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefits of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de 3 Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 4 A review of the application to proceed IFP reveals Accime is unable to pay the 5 filing fee. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the IFP application, (ECF No. 1), be 6 granted. 7 II. SCREENING STANDARD 8 Prior to ordering service on any Defendant, the Court is required to screen an in 9 forma pauperis complaint to determine whether dismissal is appropriate under certain 10 circumstances. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting the in 11 forma pauperis statute at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires a district court to dismiss an 12 in forma pauperis complaint for the enumerated reasons). Such screening is required 13 before a litigation proceeding in forma pauperis may proceed to serve a pleading. Glick 14 v. Edwards, 803 F.3d 505, 507 (9th Cir. 2015). 15 “[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that – (A) 16 the allegations of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal – (i) is frivolous or 17 malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks 18 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 19 1915(e)(2)(A), (B)(i)-(iii). 20 Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 21 granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks that language. When reviewing the adequacy of a complaint 23 under this statute, the court applies the same standard as is applied under Rule 12(b)(6). 24 See, e.g., Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The standard for 25 determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 26 under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 27 standard for failure to state a claim.”). Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling 1 2000) (citation omitted). 2 The Court must accept as true the allegations, construe the pleadings in the light 3 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. 4 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). Allegations in pro se complaints 5 are “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hughes 6 v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). 7 A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a 8 cause of actions,” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief 9 above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 10 “The pleading must contain something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely 11 creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id. (citation and quotation 12 marks omitted). At a minimum, a plaintiff should include “enough facts to state a claim to 13 relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 14 678 (2009). 15 A dismissal should not be without leave to amend unless it is clear from the face 16 of the complaint the action is frivolous and could not be amended to state a federal claim, 17 or the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See Cato v. United 18 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th 19 Cir. 1990). 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 In his complaint, Accime sues Defendants Cares Campus, Kelly “night supervisor”, 22 Breanna, and Allied Security Night Supervisor (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). 23 (ECF No. 1-1 at 2.) Accime’s complaint alleges that Defendants discriminated against him 24 and violated his federally protected rights based on the following: while he was “in the 25 lobby of the main building,” he “had a right to consume bottled drinks,” and without 26 warning “and immediately” he was given a “sit [indecipherable].” (ECF No. 1-1 at 4.) 27 Based on these facts, he alleges that he was “deprived of that right” citing to 18 U.S.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * RICHIE ACCIME, Case No. 3:25-CV-00701-MMD-CLB 4 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 5 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE1 v. 6 CARES CAMPUS, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Before the Court is Plaintiff Richie Accime’s (“Accime”) application to proceed in 10 forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), and civil rights complaint (ECF No. 1-1). For the reasons 11 stated below, the Court recommends that Accime’s in forma pauperis application, (ECF 12 No. 1), be granted, and his complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), be dismissed, with prejudice. 13 I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 14 A person may be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if the 15 person “submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] 16 possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefore. 17 Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant’s belief 18 that the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 19 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (stating 28 U.S.C. § 1915 applies to all actions filed 20 IFP, not just prisoner actions). 21 Pursuant to Local Rule LSR 1-1: “Any person who is unable to prepay the fees in 22 a civil case may apply to the court for leave to proceed [IFP]. The application must be 23 made on the form provided by the court and must include a financial affidavit disclosing 24 the applicant’s income, assets, expenses, and liabilities.” 25 “[T]he supporting affidavit [must] state the facts as to [the] affiant’s poverty with 26 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938,
27 1 This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M. Du, United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate 1 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A litigant need not “be 2 absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefits of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de 3 Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 4 A review of the application to proceed IFP reveals Accime is unable to pay the 5 filing fee. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the IFP application, (ECF No. 1), be 6 granted. 7 II. SCREENING STANDARD 8 Prior to ordering service on any Defendant, the Court is required to screen an in 9 forma pauperis complaint to determine whether dismissal is appropriate under certain 10 circumstances. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting the in 11 forma pauperis statute at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires a district court to dismiss an 12 in forma pauperis complaint for the enumerated reasons). Such screening is required 13 before a litigation proceeding in forma pauperis may proceed to serve a pleading. Glick 14 v. Edwards, 803 F.3d 505, 507 (9th Cir. 2015). 15 “[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that – (A) 16 the allegations of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal – (i) is frivolous or 17 malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks 18 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 19 1915(e)(2)(A), (B)(i)-(iii). 20 Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 21 granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks that language. When reviewing the adequacy of a complaint 23 under this statute, the court applies the same standard as is applied under Rule 12(b)(6). 24 See, e.g., Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The standard for 25 determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 26 under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 27 standard for failure to state a claim.”). Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling 1 2000) (citation omitted). 2 The Court must accept as true the allegations, construe the pleadings in the light 3 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. 4 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). Allegations in pro se complaints 5 are “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hughes 6 v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). 7 A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a 8 cause of actions,” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief 9 above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 10 “The pleading must contain something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely 11 creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id. (citation and quotation 12 marks omitted). At a minimum, a plaintiff should include “enough facts to state a claim to 13 relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 14 678 (2009). 15 A dismissal should not be without leave to amend unless it is clear from the face 16 of the complaint the action is frivolous and could not be amended to state a federal claim, 17 or the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See Cato v. United 18 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th 19 Cir. 1990). 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 In his complaint, Accime sues Defendants Cares Campus, Kelly “night supervisor”, 22 Breanna, and Allied Security Night Supervisor (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). 23 (ECF No. 1-1 at 2.) Accime’s complaint alleges that Defendants discriminated against him 24 and violated his federally protected rights based on the following: while he was “in the 25 lobby of the main building,” he “had a right to consume bottled drinks,” and without 26 warning “and immediately” he was given a “sit [indecipherable].” (ECF No. 1-1 at 4.) 27 Based on these facts, he alleges that he was “deprived of that right” citing to 18 U.S.C. § 1 Even construing the allegations of Accime’s complaint liberally, the Court cannot 2 conceive or construe any specific set of circumstances under which these conclusory 3 statements would give rise to any federal constitutional or statutory right. The complaint 4 is vague and provides little, to no, information. Dismissal on those grounds alone is 5 appropriate. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain “a 6 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order 7 to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it 8 rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation and alteration omitted). Accime’s largely 9 incomprehensible narrative makes it impossible for the Court to identify the factual or 10 legal basis for his claims. Further, Accime does not provide sufficient information to 11 determine which causes of action he wishes to proceed under, how each alleged 12 defendant was involved in the alleged violation, nor does he show how he is entitled to 13 the relief sought. 14 Moreover, to the extent that he is attempting to allege a claim for “deprivation of 15 rights” under 18 U.S.C. § 241, this is a criminal statute. “[A] private citizen lacks a judicially 16 cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonproseuction of another.” Linda R.S. v. 17 Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); see also Tia v. Crim. Investig. Demanded as Set 18 Forth, 441 Fed. Appx. 457, 458 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of “request for criminal 19 investigation into the alleged RICO conspiracy” because the plaintiff “lack[ed] standing to 20 compel an investigation or prosecution of another person”). Accime therefore lacks 21 standing to prosecute criminal statutes. 22 Accordingly, Accime states no claim upon which relief may be granted and this 23 action should therefore be dismissed with prejudice. Leave to amend is not appropriate 24 because the deficiencies in Accime’s complaint cannot be cured by amendment, making 25 amendment futile as there is no statutory or constitutional right to “consume bottled 26 drinks” as alleged in the complaint. See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1106. 27 /// 1| IV. CONCLUSION 2 For good cause appearing and for the reasons stated above, the Court | recommends that Accime’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1), be 4) granted, and his complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), be dismissed, with prejudice, as amendment 5 | would be futile. 6 The parties are advised: 7 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Rule IB 3-2 of the Local Rules of Practice, the parties may file specific written objections to this Report and 9 | Recommendation within fourteen days of receipt. These objections should be entitled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” and should be 11 | accompanied by points and authorities for consideration by the District Court. 12 2. This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order and any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. V. RECOMMENDATION 16 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Accime’s application to proceed in 17 forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1), be GRANTED. 18 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk FILE the complaint, (ECF No. 1- 19} 1). 20 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Accime’s complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), be DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE. 22 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be CLOSED, and judgment be 23 | entered accordingly. 24 DATED: December 8, 2025. TT » 25 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 gq