Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

S.L.S. v. Clark County School District

United States District Court, D. Nevada

September 15, 2017

S.L.S, a minor, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (EFC NO. 1) AND COMPLAINT (EFC NO. 1-1)

          CAM FERENBACH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before the Court are pro se Plaintiffs S.L.S (a minor) and Sonia I. Diaz de Smith's (S.L.S.'s parent and guardian) application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and complaint (ECF No. 1-1). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs' in forma pauperis application is granted. The Court, however, orders that Plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed without prejudice.

         Discussion

         Plaintiffs' filings present two questions: (1) whether Plaintiffs may proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and (2) whether Plaintiffs' complaint states a plausible claim for relief. Each is discussed below.

         I. Plaintiffs May Proceed In Forma Pauperis

         Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action "without prepayment of fees or security thereof if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff "is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor." According to Plaintiffs' affidavit, Diaz de Smith, "parent and general guardian" of her minor co-Plaintiff, makes $1, 500 from her employment and receives $300 in child support each month. (ECF No. 1 at 1). She reports $1, 800 in monthly expenses as well as a financial obligation related to a student loan. (Id. at 1). Plaintiffs' application to proceed in forma pauperis is, therefore, granted.

         II. Plaintiffs' Complaint Fails to State a Plausible Claim

         A. Legal Standard for Reviewing the Complaint

         Because the Court grants Plaintiffs' application to proceed in forma pauperis, it must review Plaintiffs' complaint to determine whether the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a plausible claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides that a complaint "that states a claim for relief must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief." The Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal states that to satisfy Rule 8's requirements, a complaint's allegations must cross "the line from conceivable to plausible." 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547, (2007)). The Court's decisions in Twombly and Iqbal prescribe a two-step procedure to determine whether a complaint's allegations cross that line.

         First, the Court must identify "the allegations in the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680. Factual allegations are not entitled to the assumption of truth if they are conclusory or "amount to nothing more than a 'formulaic recitation of the elements'" of a claim. Id. at 681 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

         Second, the Court must determine whether the complaint states a "plausible" claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. A claim is plausible if the factual allegations which are accepted as true "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678. If the factual allegation, which are accepted as true, "do not permit the Court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not 'show[n]'-that the pleader is entitled to relief." Id. at 679 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).

         "[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). If the 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. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

         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.