United States District Court, D. Nevada
MICHAEL T. MOORE, Plaintiff(s),
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendant(s).
ORDER (Docket Nos. 9, 9-1)
J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge
is proceeding in this action pro se and requested
authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in
forma pauperis. Docket No. 6. On February 27, 2018, the
Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in
forma pauperis, and screened his complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915. Docket No. 7. The Court identified
numerous deficiencies in Plaintiff's complaint, and
therefore dismissed his complaint with leave to amend to
provide him an opportunity to cure those defects.
has now filed an amended complaint, which alleges violations
of Plaintiff's and “the public performers [he]
represents[']” rights under the First, Fourth,
Fifth, and Thirteenth Amendments based on encounters and
incidents involving Defendants. Docket No. 9-1 at 5.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion to extend time to file his
amended complaint. Docket No. 9. Plaintiff submits that he
has been injured, and asks for additional time to file an
appropriate complaint if the Court determines that his
amended complaint is deficient. Id. at 1.
submits that he is not petitioning for a class action on
behalf of himself and “[t]he Sonic Laborers and Visual
Entertainers Union members who are public performers on the
Las Vegas Strip and Fremont Street.” Id. at 1.
However, Plaintiff submits numerous times that he intends to
pursue his claims and seek relief on behalf of other
individuals: (1) “I am only interested in representing
myself as a public performed and by virtue of proxy as
President and General Counsel the members of my union”;
(2) “[t]he defendants ... [act] as agents of the
casinos in a racketeering fashion deprive [me] and the public
performers I represent of their 1st,
4th, 5th, and 13th amendment
rights”; (3) “I seek to represent [me] and
members of [my] union”; (4) Plaintiff seeks
“relief in the sum of $500, 000, 000 on behalf of [me]
and the members of my union.” Id. at 1, 5, 8;
see also Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller &
Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil
§§ 1751-1752 (3d ed. 2005) (describing generally
that the purpose of a class action is to permit large groups
of individuals with a united interest to a pursue a claim in
a single action). As the Court previously states, Plaintiff
cannot proceed with a class action as a pro se
litigant. See Langan v. United Services Auto.
Assoc., 69 F.Supp.3d 965, 988-989 (N.D. Cal. 2014);
see also Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661,
664 (9th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases).
further alleges that he is “General Counsel of [The
Sonic Laborers and Visual Entertainers Union], ” and
that “he was granted an admission to the Federal Courts
in 1997 in San Francisco by Judge Burton Litvack” in
two cases “as Special Representative/Esquire of the
United Food and Commercial Workers' Union...”
Docket No. 9-1 at 1. Plaintiff is not a licensed attorney
under the laws of the State of Nevada and, therefore, cannot
use what he alleges was admission to the Federal Courts over
twenty years ago in the State of California by an
Administrative Law Judge to “override Clark
County's use of NRS for bar membership.” See
generally Nev. S.C.R. 39-75. (governing the rules of
admission to practice law in the State of Nevada).
Failure to State a Claim
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 Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 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. Id.
at 679. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported only by conclusory allegations, do not suffice.
Id. at 678.
construing Plaintiff's amended complaint liberally,
allegations consist solely of conclusory statements such as,
“the defendants...operate under the direction and
control of the casinos...[and] violate public performers'
human, labor, civil and constitutional rights” and
“[t]he defendants...are maliciously prosecuting us to
terminate our livlihoods [sic].” Docket No.
9-1 at 5-6. Such conclusory allegations fail to state how the
allegations support any claim against any defendant and,
therefore, fail to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8.
IT IS ORDERED that:
Plaintiff's motion to extend time to file an amended
complaint is GRANTED. Docket No. 9.
Plaintiff's amended complaint is
DISMISSED with leave to amend. Docket No.
9-1. Plaintiff will have until June 5, 2018, to file a second
amended complaint, if the noted deficiencies can be
corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint a
second time, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot
refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint or
the first amended complaint) in order to make the second
amended complaint complete. This is because, as a general
rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint
and any previous amended complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a)
requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself
without reference to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff
files an amended complaint, the original and any previous
complaint no longer serve any function in the case.
Therefore, in a second amended complaint, as in an original
and any previous amended complaints, each claim and the
involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
Failure to comply with this order will result in the