United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (IFP APPS. - ECF NOS. 1, 2, 7; MOTS. ADD TO
COMPL. - ECF NOS. 5, 6, 11; MOT. TO CONSOLIDATE - ECF NO.
A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the court on Plaintiff Marlon Lorenzo
Brown's Applications to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 7), Motion to Add Defendants to
Complaint (ECF No. 5), Motion to Add Defendants and Statutes
to Complaint (ECF No. 6), Motion to Add Causes of Action to
Complaint (ECF No. 11), and Motion to Consolidate Cases (ECF
No. 12). These applications and motions are referred to the
undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR
IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice.
is a pretrial detainee in the custody of the Clark County
Detention Center. He proceeding in this action pro
se, which means that he is not represented by an
attorney. See LSR 2-1. Plaintiff commenced this
action on September 12, 2017, by filing an Application for
Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) and a
proposed complaint (ECF No. 1-1). This case involves
Plaintiff's allegations of civil rights violations
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983.
November 7, 2017, he filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8),
and subsequently filed a Supplement (ECF No. 9) to the
amended pleading. Since initiating this case, Plaintiff has
filed multiple motions asking the court to add defendants,
statutes, and causes of action to his complaint. Mots (ECF
Nos. 5, 6, 11). He has also asked the court to consolidate
this case with another case he filed in this district on
January 30, 2018. Mot. to Consolidate (ECF No. 12) (seeking
consolidation with Brown v. Lombardo, et al.,
Plaintiff's Applications to Proceed In Forma
to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and the Judicial Conference
Schedule of Fees, a $400 filing fee is required to commence a
civil action in a federal district court. However, any person
who is unable to prepay the fees in a civil case may apply to
the court for authority to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”), meaning without prepaying the full $400
filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); LSR
1-1. Plaintiff initially requested permission to proceed IFP
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and LSR 1-1 of the Local
Rules of Practice. See IFP Apps (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 7).
But he subsequently paid the full $400 filing fee on May 9,
2018. See Receipt of Payment (ECF No. 10).
Accordingly, his request to proceed IFP will be denied as
Plaintiff has now paid the filing fee, the Prison Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, still
requires this court to screen his complaint. Federal courts
must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a
prisoner seeks damages from a governmental entity or officer
or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A;
see also Olivas v. Nevada ex rel. Dep't of
Corr., 856 F.3d 1281, 1283 (9th Cir. 2017) (when a
plaintiff is a prisoner “at the time the plaintiff
files the complaint, ” the screening requirement
applies). The court must screen the complaint and any amended
complaints before allowing the case to move forward, issuing
summonses, and requiring a responsive pleading. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915; Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 213-14
(2007). In its screening, the court identifies any plausible
claims and dismisses 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. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e; 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b). When a court dismisses a complaint upon the
initial screening, a plaintiff is 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 cannot be cured by amendment. Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc);
Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.
the large number of civil actions pending before the court,
the screening process may take several months to complete. It
is difficult and time-consuming work for the court to produce
a screening order that decides whether a complaint states a
claim, and if not, provides guidance to enable a pro se
plaintiff to cure any noted defects and giving an opportunity
to file an amended complaint. The court has a large docket,
including a large number of prisoner civil rights cases.
Criminal cases have priority and, in the absence of a true
emergency,  all motions filed in civil cases are
processed in the order in which they are filed. The court
will issue a separate screening order in due course.
Motions to Add Defendants, Statutes, and Causes of Action to
may amend a pleading once “as a matter of course”
within 21 days after serving it or within 21 days after
service of a motion filed pursuant to Rule 12 of the of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,  whichever occurs earlier.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). After the time for amendment as a
matter of course has expired, plaintiffs may amend a
complaint only by obtaining the court's permission or the
adverse party's written consent. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).
Local Rule 15-1 requires that an amended complaint be
complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading.
See LR 15-1(a). This is because an amended complaint
generally supersedes the original complaint. Ramirez v.
Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir.
2015). Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the
original pleading no longer serves any function in the case.
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.
1992). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original
complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant
must be sufficiently alleged.
Plaintiff's motions ask the court to add defendants,
statutes, and causes of action to his complaint and amended
complaint in a piecemeal fashion. See Mots (ECF Nos.
5, 6, 11). For example, one motion seeks to add Sheriff Joe
Lombardo and the Clark County Detention Center, while another
asks the court to add claims for defamation, slander, and
fraud. The court cannot refer to a prior pleading
(i.e., the original complaint) in order to make the
amended complaint complete. As such, the motions are denied.
Plaintiff wants to make changes to his Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 8), he must seek leave of the court to do so and attach a
complete proposed second amended complaint to his
motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; LR 15-1(a). The
court cannot determine whether leave to amend is appropriate
without having a complete, proposed amended complaint to
review. See LR 15-1(a); Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG
Music Publ'g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008). If
Plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, he must
do so by June 18, 2018. Otherwise, the court
will screen the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8).
second amended complaint must contain a short and plain
statement of: (1) the grounds for the court's
jurisdiction; (2) any claim he has showing he is entitled to
relief; and (3) a demand for the relief he seeks.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The second amended
complaint should set forth the claims in short and plain
terms, simply, concisely, and directly. See Swierkeiewicz
v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); see also
Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th
Cir. 1988) (“If the factual elements of a cause of
action are scattered throughout the complaint but are not
organized into a ‘short and plain statement of the
claim, ' dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a) is
proper.”). Additionally, exhibits are not a substitute
for a proper complaint. Instead, Plaintiff should summarize
the information he believes to be relevant as part of the
supporting facts for each claim asserted in the amended
complaint. This means that Plaintiff should avoid legal
jargon and conclusions. Instead, he should summarize the
information he believes to be relevant in his own words for
each claim asserted in the second amended complaint.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (Rule 8
demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a
“formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
is advised to support each of his claims with factual
allegations because all complaints “must contain
sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair
notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself
effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202,
1216 (9th Cir. 2011). When claims are alleged against
multiple defendants, the complaint should clearly indicate
which claims apply to which defendant. McHenry v.
Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff
should specifically identify each defendant to the best of
his ability, clarify what constitutional right he believes
each defendant violated and support each claim with factual
allegations about each defendant's actions. Where
multiple claims are alleged, the second amended complaint
should identify which factual allegations support each
particular claim. Id. A plaintiff must state
“enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation ...