United States District Court, D. Nevada
SCREENING ORDER AND REPORT AND
HOFFMAN, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the court is pro se Plaintiff George Dollar's
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No.
1), filed on April 17, 2015. Also before the court is
Plaintiff's civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (Compl. (ECF No. 1-1).)
IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
has submitted the declaration required by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees and costs or give
security for them. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to
proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
alleges that on July 24, 2014, two Las Vegas Metropolitan
Police Department (“LVMPD”) officers sought to
arrest him on false charges and when they were unable to do
so, they arrested him for possessing a box cutter in
violation of Nevada Revised Statutes §
202.350.(Compl. (ECF No. 1-1) at 2-3.) Plaintiff
alleges that the arrest was racially motivated. (Id.
at 3.) Plaintiff further alleges that as a result of the
arrest, he spent 34 days in jail, which resulted in him
losing work and his apartment. (Id. at 3-4.)
contends that he fought the issue in Justice Court and that
the district attorney attempted to force him into making an
erroneous plea deal to cover up the LVMPD officers' bad
actions. (Id. at 3.) According to Plaintiff, the
charges were dismissed based on proof of racial profiling by
the LVMPD officers and “abuse of badge.”
(Id.) Plaintiff also contends that the LVMPD Sheriff
and the Mayor of Las Vegas allowed the LVMPD officers to
violate his civil rights. (Id. at 2-3.)
now brings claims for violation of the Fourth Amendment
(claim one) and Fourteenth Amendment (claim two) against
Defendants John Doe LVMPD Officer #1, John Doe LVMPD Officer
#2, LVMPD Sheriff, the Clark County District Attorney, and
the Mayor of Las Vegas. (Id. at 2-5.) Specifically,
in count one, Plaintiff alleges that “[b]y abusing its
powers, LVMPD caused me to spend 34 days in jail, thus making
me lose property, liberty and employment.”
(Id. at 4.) In count two, Plaintiff alleges that
“defendants, via its police arm (LVMPD) so violated my
right to liberty and property.” (Id. at 5.)
Based on these allegations, the court understands Plaintiff
to be alleging Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest and
Fourteenth Amendment due process violation claims.
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, file 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).
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).
42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that “[e]very person
who, under color of [law], subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law . . . .” Section 1983 does
not create any substantive rights, but provides a method for
enforcing rights contained in the Constitution or federal
statutes. Crowley v. Nev. ex. rel. Nev. Sec'y of
State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012). To state a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege
“(1) the defendants acting under color ...