Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ruiz v. Nevada Department of Corrections

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 16, 2018

JOHN RUIZ, Plaintiff,
v.
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al., Defendant.

          AMENDED ORDER APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 4) AND SCREENING OF COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1-2)

          GEORGE FOLEY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This amended order replaces the order (ECF No. 7) entered on May 16, 2018.

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 4), filed February 1, 2018. The Court initially denied without prejudice Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1), granting Plaintiff until February 22, 2018 to file a completed application or pay the $350 filing fee. See Order ECF No. 3. The Court will now review Plaintiff's renewed Application (ECF No. 4) and screen Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1-2).

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff alleges that on or about January 2011 he was “sexually compromised and sexually abused” by a guard, Jeri Frederick (“Frederick”) of the Lovelock Correctional Center (“LCC”). Plaintiff further asserts that he informed the doctor at LLC, Dr. Scott, of Frederick's behavior. Plaintiff was subsequently diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease. Plaintiff fails to indicate the relief sought for these allegations. . . .

         DISCUSSION

         I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

         The Court's prior Order (ECF. No. 7) granting Plaintiff's in Forma Pauperis application is hereby vacated. The Court shall defer any ruling on Plaintiff's in Forma Pauperis application until such time as the parties have gone through mediation.

         II. Screening the Complaint

         Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

         In addition to the screening requirements under § 1915A, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a federal court must dismiss a prisoner's claims, “if the allegation of poverty is untrue, ” or if the action “is frivolous or malicious, ” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, ” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the Court applies the same standard under Section 1915(e)(2) when reviewing the adequacy of a complaint or amended complaint.

         Review under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Laboratory Corp. of America, 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him or her to relief. See Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). In making this determination, the Court takes as true all allegations of material fact stated in the complaint, and the Court construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., 74 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1996). Allegations in a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam). While the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-1965 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id., See Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986).

         All or part of a complaint filed by a prisoner may therefore be dismissed sua sponte if the prisoner's claims lack an arguable basis either in law or in fact. This includes claims based on legal conclusions that are untenable (e.g. claims against defendants who are immune from suit or claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist), as well as claims based on fanciful factual allegations (e.g. fantastic or delusional scenarios). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.