Tinika Se’Cal Warren v. William Leonard Roberts II, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 31, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02058
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4 * * *

5 Tinika Se’Cal Warren, Case No. 2:25-cv-02058-APG-BNW

6 Plaintiff, ORDER 7 v.

8 William Leonard Roberts II, et al.,

9 Defendants.

10 11 Before this Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. 12 Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay 13 fees or costs or give security for them. Accordingly, this Court will grant her request to proceed in 14 forma pauperis. This Court now screens Plaintiff’s complaint. 15 I. ANALYSIS 16 A. Screening standard 17 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 19 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 20 granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard 22 for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 23 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 24 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 25 v. 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 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of 2 material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler 3 Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 4 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff 5 must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 6 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. 7 Unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se 8 plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s 9 deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 10 B. Screening the Complaint 11 Plaintiff’s complaint is hard to understand. Specifically, it is not clear which claims 12 Plaintiff seeks to bring, the facts underlying them, or which Defendant is responsible for what 13 conduct. ECF No. 1-1. Even liberally construing Plaintiff’s complaint, this Court cannot evaluate 14 whether Plaintiff states any claims for relief. Accordingly, this Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s 15 complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. 16 C. Instructions for Amendment 17 Plaintiff is advised that if she files an amended complaint she must specify which claims 18 she is alleging against which Defendants and what facts underlie each claim. Although the 19 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, Plaintiff still must give 20 Defendants fair notice of each of the claims she is alleging against each defendant. 21 Plaintiff is also advised that if she chooses to file an amended complaint, the original 22 complaint no longer serves any function in this case. As such, if she files an amended complaint, 23 each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be alleged sufficiently. The Court cannot 24 refer to a prior pleading or to other documents to make his amended complaint complete. The 25 amended complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to prior pleadings or to 26 other documents. 27 / / 1 |) OL CONCLUSION 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis 3 || CECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court must detach and separately file 5 || Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will have until December 1, 2025, to file an 7 || amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint by that date may result in dismissal of 8 || the case. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the 10 || pro se form complaint. 11 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. 12 13 DATED: October 31, 2025 14 LA pun le We ER BRENDA WEKSLER 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28