United States District Court, D. Nevada
MICHAEL T. MOORE, Plaintiff,
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
J. KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Plaintiff Michael T. Moore 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. 6. Plaintiff also submitted a
complaint, Docket No. 1-1, and a motion to amend his
complaint, Docket No. 4. Finally, Plaintiff has submitted a
motion for jury demand. Docket No. 3.
In Forma Pauperis Application
has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a).
Docket No. 6. The Court finds 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
Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 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
Iqbal). Plaintiffs' complaint suffers from
attempts to file his complaint as a class action, with
Plaintiff representing the class pro se. Docket No.
1-1. Plaintiff cannot, however, proceed with a class action
as a pro se litigant. See Langan v. United
Services Auto. Assoc., 69 F.Supp.3d 965, 988-89 (N.D.
Cal. 2014), see also Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc.,
546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases).
Failure to State a Claim
8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule
8(a)”) provides that a pleading stating a claim for
relief must contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). In order to meet this standard, a claim
for relief must be stated with “brevity, conciseness,
and clarity.” See Charles A. Wright &
Arthur R. Miller, 5 Fed. Practice and Procedure § 1215
(3d ed.). To 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.
the Court understands the basic gist of Plaintiff's
grievance appears to be related to public performers and
their treatment. See Docket No. 1-1. At the same
time, however, Plaintiff's 16-page complaint is not
“short and plain, ” and fails to set forth any
claim or how the allegations in the complaint support any
claim against any defendant. See Id. Quite simply,
the complaint fails to identify how the factual allegations
made state a claim for any particular cause of action, and
therefore fails to satisfy Rule 8. Further, Plaintiff's
motion to amend the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 and
the Court's Local Rules requiring that an amended
complaint be complete in itself.