Tatiana Hamilton v. Trincon Residential, et al.

Opinion

* * *

Tatiana Hamilton, Case No. 2:25-cv-02504-GMN-BNW

Plaintiff, ORDER and REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION

Trincon Residential, et al.,

Defendants.

Pro se plaintiff Tatiana Hamilton brings this lawsuit regarding her inability to file documents with the Clark County Recorder Office. She filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees or costs or give security for them. ECF No.1. Therefore, her request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. This Court now screens her complaint (ECF No. 1-1) as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 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 alleges that the Clark County Recorder Office has rejected her trust documents. As a result, she claims the Recorder Office has not fulfilled her ministerial duties as provided in Matthews 5:25 (“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court.”). She also alleges some wrongdoing on the part of Defendant Tricon (although the allegations are unclear). The asserted claims are “the right of redemption,” and “NRS 247.145.” Even liberally construing the complaint, the court finds Plaintiff cannot not state a claim for which relief can be granted—at least not in federal court. As to the first claim, “the right of redemption,” is not a recognized cause of action. As to the second claim, NRS 2476.145, it is not clear how the statute was violated. In any event, this Court would not have juris action over that claim. “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 arises under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” or (2) meets the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. IL. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must detach and separately file plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1-1). IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 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. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, } 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: December 19, 2025 LK lincO ban BRENDA WEKSLER □ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE