United States District Court, D. Nevada
J. KOPPE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Grace Albanese, proceeding in this action pro se,
has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to
proceed in forma pauperis, and submitted a complaint
on June 14, 2017. Docket Nos. 1, 1-1.
In Forma Pauperis Application
has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915 showing
an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for
them. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma
pauperis will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). The Court will now review Plaintiffs Complaint.
Screening the Complaint
granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, the
Court additionally screens the complaint pursuant to §
1915. 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 who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). When
the Court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, 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).
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for
dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Review under Rule
12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of
law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719,
723 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual
allegations, it demands "more than labels and
conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action." Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v.
Attain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The court must accept
as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the
complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal
conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Mere recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by
conclusory allegations, do not suffice. Id. at 678.
Additionally, where the claims in the complaint have not
crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint
should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
Allegations of a.pro se complaint are held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th
Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal construction of pro
se pleadings is required after Twombly and
instance, Plaintiff has submitted a one-page complaint
alleging that she is being stalked and that "Homeland
Security" refuses to get involved. See Docket
No. 1-1 at 2. Plaintiff vaguely refers to "obstruction
of justice, " due process, equal protection, and 42
U.S.C. § 1983, without explaining how § 1983
applies to this action, or how any constitutional provisions
have allegedly been violated. Id. at 1-2. Further,
she fails to set forth in sufficient detail the facts
underlying this action. Id. at 2. Thus, Plaintiffs
complaint fails to satisfy Rule 8's basic requirements
and therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis
is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall not be required to pay the filing
fee of four hundred dollars ($400.00).
2. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to
conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any
additional fees or costs or the giving of a security
therefor. This Order granting leave to proceed in forma
pauperis shall not extend to the issuance and/or service
of subpoenas at government expense.
3. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Complaint.
4. The Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff
will have until July 20, 2017, to file an Amended Complaint,
if she believes she can correct the noted deficiencies. If
Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is
informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading
(i.e., her original Complaint) in order to make the Amended
Complaint complete. This is because, as a general rule, an
Amended Complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Local
Rule 15-1 (a) requires that an Amended Complaint be complete
in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Once a
plaintiff files an Amended Complaint, the original Complaint
no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an
Amended Complaint, as in an ...