United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (EFC
NO. 1) AND COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1-1)
Ferenbach United States Magistrate Judge
the Court are pro se Plaintiff Leo Cono's
application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1)
and complaint (ECF No. 1-1). For the reasons stated below,
Cono's in forma pauperis application is granted.
The Court, however, orders that Cono's complaint be
dismissed without prejudice.
filings present two questions: (1) whether Cono may proceed
in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and
(2) whether Cono's complaint states a plausible claim for
relief. Each is discussed below.
Whether Cono 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
Cono's affidavit, he has no income and significant
expenses. (ECF No. 1). Cono's application to proceed
in forma pauperis is, therefore, granted.
Whether Cono's Complaint States a Plausible
the Court grants Cono's application to proceed in
forma pauperis, it must review Cono's complaint to
determine whether the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a plausible claim.
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)).
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).
complaint is difficult to follow. It consists of four pages
of sentence fragments that trail of the pages. (ECF No. 1-1
at 2-5). There are no dates associated with the allegations,
making it impossible to create a coherent timeline. The
complaint fails to connect the alleged facts to any law
supporting a claim for relief-Cono simply lists several
alleged crimes at the end of his complaint. (Id. at
5). In addition, the complaint and civil cover sheet make it
unclear whether Cono and the Defendant reside in Nevada,
California, or Virginia. (Id. at 1, ECF No. 1-2).
Should Defendant reside in California or Virginia, it is
doubtful that this Court would have personal jurisdiction
over the Defendant or could be considered a proper venue.
See Morrill v. Scott Fin. Corp., 873 F.3d 1136,
1141-42 (9th Cir. 2017); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Court cannot determine what Cono is alleging in this case.
Cono fails to allege coherent facts or articulate a claim or
claims against the Defendant. These deficiencies may be cured
through amendment. Therefore, Cono's complaint is
dismissed without prejudice. Cono must file an amended
complaint explaining how the Court has jurisdiction over the
Defendant, the circumstances of the case, the relief Cono
seeks from the Court, and the law upon which he relies in
bringing the case in this Court.
“[n]o technical form is required for complaints”
(Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)), “[a] party must state its
claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as
far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.
…If doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded
on a separate transaction or occurrence…must be stated
in a separate count or defense” (Fed. R. Civ. P.
10(b)). The amended complaint must be “complete in
itself, including exhibits, without reference to the
superseded pleading.” LR 15-1.
IT IS ORDERED that Cono's application to proceed in