Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Belval v. Walgreen's

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 20, 2017

WALGREEN'S, et al., Defendants.


          GEORGE FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge.

         This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1), filed on April 19, 2016.


         In general, Plaintiff's complaint is not entirely clear. The claims in Plaintiff's complaint appear to stem from an alleged incident where a “Hot and Cold” pack purchased by Plaintiff burst causing Plaintiff to suffer severe burns to her “leftside, anterior chest wall, 4" x 4" big.” Complaint (ECF No. 1-1), 2:26-27. Based on this incident, Plaintiff appears to be alleging a claim for products liability against Walgreens. After this alleged incident Plaintiff sought treatment at Desert Springs Hospital and Sunrise Medical Center, where she argues that she was not properly treated for her burns and therefore asserts claims against those facilities as well as Robert Musni, M.D. for medical malpractice. In addition to her medical malpractice claims against Sunrise Medical Center, Plaintiff asserts that it is “functioning as [a] terrorist criminal racketeering organization” because it apparently allowed a man and a seven year old child to stalk her and threaten her safety. Id. at 6:25.

         In addition to these allegations, Plaintiff also asserts claims for “federal kidnaping” against Desert Parkway Behavioral Hospital, who Plaintiff claims illegally committed her to the psychiatric ward for treatment in March 2016. It also appears that Plaintiff is asserting the same claim against Sunrise Hospital for an alleged commitment that occurred in or around October 2014. It also appears that Plaintiff is asserting claims against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department for violations of her civil rights and liberties stemming from incidents that occurred after Plaintiff was burned.

         Since filing her initial complaint, Plaintiff has also filed four separate motions to amend complaint. (See ECF Nos. 6, 8, 13, and 20). Three of Plaintiff's motions seek to add additional parties for events that are entirely unrelated to her claims arising from her initial burn injury. For instance, Plaintiff seeks to add Wells Fargo and Bank of America for “federal banking violations.” (See ECF Nos. 6 and 8). She also seeks to add Siegel Suites and/or Sierra Vista Square Apartments asserting that they own an apartment complex, that they have failed to fix the fire extinguishers, that Siegel Suites is illegally collecting Plaintiff's monthly rent, and that they are allowing terrorists to attack her. (See ECF No. 8). In addition Plaintiff wishes to add T-Mobile to her complaint and asserts claims of fraud, deceit, and “interruptions of Federal PUC connection.” Mot ion to Amend (ECF No. 20), pg. 1.


         I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

         Plaintiff filed this instant action and attached a financial affidavit to her application and complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Reviewing Plaintiff's financial affidavit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pre-pay the filing fee. As a result, Plaintiff's request to proceed in form a pauperis in federal court is granted.

         II. Screening the Complaint

         Upon granting a request to proceed in f orm a pauperis, a court must additionally screen a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Specifically, federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious, ” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant/third party plaintiff who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted “if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief.” Buckey v. Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous if it is premised on a nonexistent legal interest or delusional factual scenario. Neit zk e v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). Moreover, “a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

         Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, deriving their power to hear cases from specific congressional grants of jurisdiction. Unit ed States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 2000). Limited jurisdiction means that federal courts (1) possess only that power authorized by the Constitution or a specific federal statute and (2) do not have jurisdiction over a matter simply because the alleged wrong occurred in the same city, county, or state in which the court sits. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Generally, subject matter jurisdiction may derive from diversity of the parties, which are “civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000 ... and is between citizens of different States, ” or from claims involving a federal question, which are “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

         Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a “claim for relief must contain ... a short plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). The burden of proving jurisdiction rests on the party asserting jurisdiction. See McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. 298 U.S. 178, 182-83 (1936). Plaintiff states the following grounds as the basis for this Court's jurisdiction over her claims:


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.