1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *
4 CRAIG ALAN VANNESS, Case No. 3:24-CV-00309-ART-CLB
5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE1 6 v. [ECF No. 1] 7 SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, et. al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff Craig Alan VanNess (“VanNess”), application to 11 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), and his pro se civil rights complaint (ECF No. 1- 12 1). For the reasons stated below, the Court recommends that VanNess’s in forma 13 pauperis application, (ECF No. 1), be granted, and his complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), be 14 dismissed, with prejudice. 15 I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 16 A person may be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if the 17 person “submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] 18 possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefore. 19 Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant’s belief 20 that the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 21 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (stating 28 U.S.C. § 1915 applies to all actions filed 22 IFP, not just prisoner actions). 23 The Local Rules of Practice for the District of Nevada provide: “Any person who is 24 unable to prepay the fees in a civil case may apply to the court for authority to proceed 25 [IFP]. The application must be made on the form provided by the court and must include 26
27 1 This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Anne R. Traum, United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate 1 a financial affidavit disclosing the applicant’s income, assets, expenses, and liabilities.” 2 LSR 1-1. 3 “[T]he supporting affidavit [must] state the facts as to [the] affiant’s poverty with 4 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” U.S. v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th 5 Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A litigant need not “be absolutely 6 destitute to enjoy the benefits of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 7 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 8 A review of the application to proceed IFP reveals VanNess cannot pay the filing 9 fee; therefore, the Court recommends that the application, (ECF No. 1), be granted. 10 II. SCREENING STANDARD 11 Prior to ordering service on any defendant, the court is required to screen an in 12 forma pauperis complaint to determine whether dismissal is appropriate under certain 13 circumstances. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126 (noting the in forma pauperis statute at 28 14 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint for 15 the enumerated reasons). Such screening is required before a litigation proceeding in 16 forma pauperis may proceed to serve a pleading. Glick v. Edwards, 803 F.3d 505, 507 17 (9th Cir. 2015). 18 “[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that – (A) the 19 allegations of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal – (i) is frivolous or malicious; 20 (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief 21 against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A), (B)(i)- 22 (iii). 23 Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 24 granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and 28 U.S.C. § 25 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks that language. When reviewing the adequacy of a complaint under 26 this statute, the court applies the same standard as is applied under Rule 12(b)(6). See, 27 e.g., Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The standard for 1 under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 2 standard for failure to state a claim.”). Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling 3 on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of America, 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 4 2000) (citation omitted). 5 The court must accept as true the allegations, construe the pleadings in the light 6 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. 7 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). Allegations in pro se complaints 8 are “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]” Hughes 9 v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). 10 A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a 11 cause of actions,” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief 12 above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 13 “The pleading must contain something more. . . than. . . a statement of facts that merely 14 creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id. (citation and quotation 15 marks omitted). At a minimum, a plaintiff should include “enough facts to state a claim to 16 relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 17 (2009). 18 A dismissal should not be without leave to amend unless it is clear from the face 19 of the complaint the action is frivolous and could not be amended to state a federal claim, 20 or the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See Cato v. United 21 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th 22 Cir. 1990). 23 III. SCREENING OF COMPLAINT 24 In his complaint, VanNess sues Defendants Second Judicial District Court and the 25 State of Nevada, stating he was “made to register as a sex offender for 23 years for a 26 non[-]registerable offense that violates all [his] rights and puts [his] life in danger.” (ECF 27 No. 1-1 at 4.) VanNess asks for “8,250.1 million dollars.” (Id.) 1 VanNess’s complaint is rambling, nonsensical, and filled with incomplete 2 sentences. Dismissal on those grounds alone is appropriate. Federal Rule of Civil 3 Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the 4 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice 5 of what the . . .
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 * * *
4 CRAIG ALAN VANNESS, Case No. 3:24-CV-00309-ART-CLB
5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE1 6 v. [ECF No. 1] 7 SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, et. al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff Craig Alan VanNess (“VanNess”), application to 11 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), and his pro se civil rights complaint (ECF No. 1- 12 1). For the reasons stated below, the Court recommends that VanNess’s in forma 13 pauperis application, (ECF No. 1), be granted, and his complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), be 14 dismissed, with prejudice. 15 I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 16 A person may be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if the 17 person “submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] 18 possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefore. 19 Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant’s belief 20 that the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 21 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (stating 28 U.S.C. § 1915 applies to all actions filed 22 IFP, not just prisoner actions). 23 The Local Rules of Practice for the District of Nevada provide: “Any person who is 24 unable to prepay the fees in a civil case may apply to the court for authority to proceed 25 [IFP]. The application must be made on the form provided by the court and must include 26
27 1 This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Anne R. Traum, United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate 1 a financial affidavit disclosing the applicant’s income, assets, expenses, and liabilities.” 2 LSR 1-1. 3 “[T]he supporting affidavit [must] state the facts as to [the] affiant’s poverty with 4 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” U.S. v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th 5 Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A litigant need not “be absolutely 6 destitute to enjoy the benefits of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 7 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 8 A review of the application to proceed IFP reveals VanNess cannot pay the filing 9 fee; therefore, the Court recommends that the application, (ECF No. 1), be granted. 10 II. SCREENING STANDARD 11 Prior to ordering service on any defendant, the court is required to screen an in 12 forma pauperis complaint to determine whether dismissal is appropriate under certain 13 circumstances. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126 (noting the in forma pauperis statute at 28 14 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint for 15 the enumerated reasons). Such screening is required before a litigation proceeding in 16 forma pauperis may proceed to serve a pleading. Glick v. Edwards, 803 F.3d 505, 507 17 (9th Cir. 2015). 18 “[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that – (A) the 19 allegations of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal – (i) is frivolous or malicious; 20 (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief 21 against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A), (B)(i)- 22 (iii). 23 Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 24 granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and 28 U.S.C. § 25 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks that language. When reviewing the adequacy of a complaint under 26 this statute, the court applies the same standard as is applied under Rule 12(b)(6). See, 27 e.g., Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The standard for 1 under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 2 standard for failure to state a claim.”). Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling 3 on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of America, 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 4 2000) (citation omitted). 5 The court must accept as true the allegations, construe the pleadings in the light 6 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. 7 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). Allegations in pro se complaints 8 are “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]” Hughes 9 v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). 10 A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a 11 cause of actions,” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief 12 above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 13 “The pleading must contain something more. . . than. . . a statement of facts that merely 14 creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id. (citation and quotation 15 marks omitted). At a minimum, a plaintiff should include “enough facts to state a claim to 16 relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 17 (2009). 18 A dismissal should not be without leave to amend unless it is clear from the face 19 of the complaint the action is frivolous and could not be amended to state a federal claim, 20 or the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See Cato v. United 21 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th 22 Cir. 1990). 23 III. SCREENING OF COMPLAINT 24 In his complaint, VanNess sues Defendants Second Judicial District Court and the 25 State of Nevada, stating he was “made to register as a sex offender for 23 years for a 26 non[-]registerable offense that violates all [his] rights and puts [his] life in danger.” (ECF 27 No. 1-1 at 4.) VanNess asks for “8,250.1 million dollars.” (Id.) 1 VanNess’s complaint is rambling, nonsensical, and filled with incomplete 2 sentences. Dismissal on those grounds alone is appropriate. Federal Rule of Civil 3 Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the 4 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice 5 of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 6 (quotation and alteration omitted). It must also include “a demand for the relief sought. . . 7 .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3). Here, VanNess’s largely incomprehensible narrative makes it 8 nearly impossible for the Court to identify the factual or legal basis for his claims or the 9 nature of his requested relief. VanNess states no claim upon which relief may be granted, 10 and given the vague nature of the allegations, amendment would be futile. See Cato, 70 11 F.3d at 1106. 12 Notwithstanding the above, to the extent VanNess is arguing that being required 13 to register as a sex offender violates his rights, the Ninth Circuit has stated that 14 “individuals convicted of serious sex offenses do not have a fundamental right to be free 15 from sex offender registration requirements.” United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 16 999, 1012 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Doe v. Tandeske, 361 F.3d 594, 597 (9th Cir.2004)). 17 Accordingly, the Court recommends the complaint be dismissed, with prejudice, 18 as amendment would be futile. 19 IV. CONCLUSION 20 For good cause appearing and for the reasons stated above, the Court 21 recommends that VanNess’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1), be 22 granted, and his complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), be dismissed, with prejudice, as amendment 23 would be futile. 24 The parties are advised: 25 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Rule IB 3-2 of the Local Rules of 26 Practice, the parties may file specific written objections to this Report and 27 Recommendation within fourteen days of receipt. These objections should be entitled 4 | accompanied by points and authorities for consideration by the District Court. 2 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. 5| V. RECOMMENDATION 6 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that VanNess'’s application to proceed in 7 | forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1), be GRANTED; 8 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk FILE the complaint, (ECF No. 1- 1); 10 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that VanNess’s complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), be DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE; and, 12 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be CLOSED, and that judgment be entered accordingly. 14 DATED: August 22, 2024 | | ‘
15 16 UNITED STATES\MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 gq