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.

Sager v. LV, NV - Baltimore

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 3, 2017




         This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Margaret E. Sager II's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) and Motion to Bring Forth $2, 000 (ECF No. 5). This Application and Motion are referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 and of the Local Rules of Practice.

         I. In Forma Pauperis Application (ECF No. 1)

         Ms. Sager is proceeding in this action pro se, which means she is not represented by an attorney. See LSR 2-1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and LSR 1-1 of the Local Rules of Practice, any person who is unable to prepay the fees in a civil case may apply to the court for authority to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), meaning without prepaying the full $400 filing fee. Here, Sager has requested authority to proceed IFP and submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that she is unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, her request to proceed IFP will be granted.

         The court notes that no IFP application was received for Ms. Sager's son, Victor J. Albanese, whom she names in her initiating documents as a plaintiff. She states her son, who was born in 1986, has been missing since July 4, 2016. She asks that the court award an immediate $50 million dollars and bring her son back. As a general rule, pro se parties may not pursue claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity. See, e.g., Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 665 (9th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases); Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that a parent or guardian may not bring suit in federal court on behalf of their child without first retaining an attorney). Thus, only Sager will be recognized as the plaintiff in the court's analysis.

         II. Screening the Complaint

         After granting a litigant's IFP request, a federal court must screen the complaint and any amended complaints filed prior to a responsive pleading pursuant to § 1915(e). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). If the complaint states a valid claim for relief, the court will direct the Clerk of the Court to issue summons to the defendant(s) and the plaintiff must then serve the summons and complaint within 90 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). When a court dismisses a complaint pursuant to § 1915(e), a plaintiff is ordinarily given leave to amend 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. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

         Allegations in a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleading drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 n.7 (9th Cir. 2010). However, pro se litigants “should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record, ” Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986); rather, they must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995).

         A. Ms. Sager's Factual Allegations and Claims for Relief

         The initiating document is titled “A Request for Immediate Relief” (ECF No. 1-1), which the court will construe as her complaint. The complaint is legible, although difficult to follow, but the court will try to accurately summarize her allegations. She appears to name as defendants LV, NV - Baltimore, MD Social Security Administrations, Zarada from Nevada Legal Services, Nevada State Welfare, Brian Sandoval, Shook & Stone Atty, Tod aka Malcome Lundgren “TV Actor, ” Aaron James Mitchell, LV, NV and Wash D.C. FBI, Michael G. Simon, and Elks Club.

         Ms. Sager alleges that her son, Victor has been missing since July 2016, which she has told the court in previous actions.[1] She states that she has filed at least 50-60 criminal reports with the police department but no officer or detective has helped her or her son. Since at least 2004, Sager alleges that she and her son have been tortured daily. Defendants and others have forged United States Treasury checks. Members of her family have committed “satanic, sadistic murders.” Thus, she asks the court for immediate protection.

         Ms. Sager further alleges that defendants keep her and her son from living in their homes. Defendants beat them with broken bones, perform surgeries, including “lobotomies, ” and place them in facilities such as Rosen Neil, West Care Mental Health Unit, and UMC Mental Ward. They have been shot at, set on fire, put in car accidents, locked up in vacant apartments, and tortured. Thus, she asks that her son be brought to her and defendants be ordered to pay $50 million dollars to give her proper living conditions.

         For the reasons discussed below, the court finds that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

         B. ...

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.