United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, (ECF,
1)
CAM
FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Before
the Court are Plaintiffs Ashley Garnett's and Richard
Garnett's Application for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 1) and complaint (ECF No. 1-1). For
the following reasons, the application to proceed in
forma pauperis is denied without prejudice.
IN
FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
I.
Garnett's In Forma Pauperis Application
Under
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a filing fee is required to
commence a civil action in federal court. The Court may
authorize an individual to commence an action without
prepayment of fees and costs if they file an application to
proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1).
It is
currently unclear if the parties intend to name Richard
Garnett as a Plaintiff. The Application to Proceed in
forma pauperis and the Complaint both list Ashley
Garnett as the only Plaintiff. (ECF No. 1 at 1; ECF No. 1-1
at 1). However, the Complaint states that both Ashley Garnett
and Richard Garnett “are requesting to proceed in
forma pauperis.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 1). The Court
also notes that the docket report lists Richard Garnett as a
Plaintiff.
Ashley
Garnett must clarify who exactly is intended to be a
Plaintiff in this action. If Richard Garnett is intended to
be a Plaintiff, then Richard Garnett must submit and sign a
financial affidavit. Ashley Garnett, as a non-attorney, has
no authority to represent other individuals before the Court.
Johns v. Cty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th
Cir. 1997). If Ashley Garnett is the only Plaintiff, then she
must amend the Complaint to remove Richard Garnett from this
action. Since the Court cannot determine if a sufficient
number of financial affidavits have been filed, the
Application is denied without prejudice.
The
Court notes that the application Ashley Garnett filed
contains sufficient financial information for both her and
Richard Garnett to proceed in forma pauperis. If
Ashley Garnett intends to name Richard Garnett as a
Plaintiff, having Richard Garnett also sign the application
(underneath Ashley Garnett's signature) would be enough
to correct the issues discussed above. Ashley Garnett
(hereafter referred to as “Garnett”) may refile
the Application when she has addressed the issues mentioned
above.
II.Court
Recommendations to Garnett Regarding the Complaint
Since
the Court denies Garnett's application without prejudice
because of issues with the financial affidavit, it does not
need to address the adequacy of the Complaint. However, if
Garnett files an amended affidavit and the Court grants her
application, the Court will screen her complaint.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court recommends
that Garnett take the following issues into consideration,
and file an amended Complaint along with her amended
financial affidavit.
“[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)). Federal courts have 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). 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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). “A
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Finally, a
complaint must make a short and plain statement showing why
the court has jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
As a
preliminary matter, the Court struggles to understand some of
the allegations in Garnett's complaint. The Complaint
does not contain the necessary punctuation to show where one
idea ends and the next one begins. The Court does its best to
judge each pleading on the merits, but this process is more
difficult when the Court must struggle to understand the
pleading. While the Court is sympathetic to the fact the
Garnett is proceeding pro se, she must take greater
care when writing and submitting court documents.
Garnett's
Complaint does not state a theory of liability. While Garnett
alleges many facts, she does not tie them to any legal theory
that gives rise to a cause of action. For example, Garnett
claims that Defendant (the CEO of a grocery store chain)
violated her civil rights when one of his stores
discriminated against her for being in an interracial
relationship. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2). Specifically, Garnett
alleges that Defendant's employees directed hostile
gestures and facial expression towards her. (ECF No 1-1 at
2-3). However, Garnett does not specifically state what civil
rights Defendant violated. Garnett also does not mention how
this violation breaks some existing law (generally, private
individuals/entities are not liable for violating civil
rights unless there is some law stopping them from doing so;
see Garner v. State of La., 368 U.S. 157, 178
(1961)). Without this information, the Court would likely
find that Garnett's claims do not show that she is
entitled to relief.
Garnett's
Complaint does not state why this Court has jurisdiction. The
Federal Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction. Polo v.
Innoventions Int'l, LLC, 833 F.3d 1193, 1195 (9th
Cir. 2016). Federal courts have jurisdiction if (1) the
action arises under federal law, or (2) all plaintiffs are
citizens of a different state than any defendant and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. See 28
U.S.C. ยงยง 1331, 1332. The Complaint must also the
state why the District Court ...