United States District Court, D. Nevada
J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Plaintiff is proceeding in this
action pro se and has requested authority pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma
pauperis. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff also submitted a
complaint. Docket No. 1-1.
In Forma Pauperis Application
has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a).
Docket No. 1. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has shown an
inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them.
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma
pauperis will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). The Clerk's Office is further
INSTRUCTED to file the complaint on the
docket. The Court will now review Plaintiff's complaint.
granting an application to proceed in forma
pauperis, courts additionally screen the complaint
pursuant to § 1915(e). 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 a 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 Atlantic 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. Allain, 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. Secondly,
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
case, Plaintiff has filed a one-page complaint consisting of
boilerplate assertions that Defendant engaged in various
types of misconduct. Docket No. 1-1. Plaintiff fails to
identify what cause of action she is intending to bring, on
what legal theory, and what factual allegations support the
cause of action. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to explain
why this Court has jurisdiction over any claim she intends to
bring against Defendant.
comply with Rule 8, a complaint must set forth coherently who
is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with
enough detail to guide discovery. See McHenry v.
Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1995). Although the
Court construes complaints drafted by pro se
litigants liberally, they still must comply with the basic
requirements of Rule 8. See, e.g., Montgomery v.
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 2014 WL 3724213, at
*3 n.3 (D. Nev. July 28, 2014). Moreover, the complaint must
sufficiently allege a basis for the Court to assert subject
matter jurisdiction over the case.
complaint fails to sufficiently explain the claim being
pursued or allege subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore
fails to satisfy Rule 8. The Court will, however, allow
Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to comply
with Rule 8.
IT IS ORDERED that:
Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis
is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall not be required
to pay the filing fee of four hundred dollars ($400.00).
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