United States District Court, D. Nevada
DWAYNE R. QUINEY, Plaintiff,
PILOT/FLYING J TRUCK STOP, Defendant.
ORDER APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (EFC
NO. 1) AND COMPLAINT (EFC NO. 1-1)
Ferenbach United States Magistrate Judge.
the Court are Plaintiff Dwayne Quiney's application to
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and complaint
(ECF No. 1-1). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's
in forma pauperis application is granted. The Court,
however, orders that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed
filings present two questions: (1) whether Plaintiff may
proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) and (2) whether Plaintiff's complaint states a
plausible claim for relief. Each is discussed below.
Plaintiff May Proceed In Forma Pauperis
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
Plaintiff's affidavit, he makes $150-200 weekly through
his work and has over $1, 000 in monthly expenses, in
addition to other debts. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff's
application to proceed in forma pauperis is,
The Court Does Not Clearly Have Jurisdiction Over This
Legal Standard for Reviewing the Complaint
the Court grants Plaintiff's application to proceed
in forma pauperis, it must review Plaintiff's
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.” 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).
courts have limited jurisdiction and are only able to hear
cases authorized by the Constitution and Congress. Polo
v. Innoventions Int'l, LLC, 833 F.3d 1193, 1195-96
(9th Cir. 2016). The general bases for federal jurisdiction
are (1) the action arises under federal law or that (2) all
plaintiffs are diverse in citizenship from all defendants and
the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
case does not pose a federal question. Though Plaintiff cites
28 U.S.C. § 4101 (ECF No. 1-1 at 1), the statute merely
provides a definition of defamation. The chapter of the
U.S.C. containing that definition relates to recognizing
foreign defamation judgments. 28 U.S.C. §4102. Plaintiff
does not ask the Court to recognize a foreign defamation
judgment against Defendant. Plaintiff is attempting to bring
an original claim for defamation against Defendant. (ECF No.
1-1). Defamation is generally a state law claim. See
Adelson v. Hananel, No. 2:06-CV-1590-ECR-PAL, 2009 WL
2835119, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 26, 2009). Therefore, the Court
does not have jurisdiction over the case based on a federal
complaint fails allege that the Court has diversity
jurisdiction over this case. The complaint is not clear
regarding who the potential defendants actually are. The
complaint only lists Pilot/Flying J Truck Stop as a Defendant
(ECF No. 1-1 at 1), but it contains allegations regarding
Dollar General (Id.). In addition, the complaint
contains no allegations regarding the potential
defendants' states of incorporation or their principal
places of business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
However, the civil cover sheet indicates that at least one of
the potential defendants resides in Tennessee. (ECF No. 1-2).
This suggests that the deficiency in the complaint may be
cured by allowing the Plaintiff an opportunity to file an
amended complaint addressing the potential defendants'
states of incorporation and their principal places of
business. Plaintiff is advised that, should he decide to file
an amended complaint in accordance with this order, the
complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the
grounds of this Court's jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(1). This will also give Plaintiff an opportunity to
provide other critical details in his amended complaint, such
as when and where the alleged events took place.
and for good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's
Application to Proceed In Forma ...