United States District Court, D. Nevada
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) and
Complaint (ECF No. 1-1)
ORDER & REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
the Court is pro se Plaintiff Milan Kjalasan's
(“Plaintiff”) application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 1) and complaint (ECF No. 1-1). For
the following reasons, Plaintiff's in forma
pauperis application is granted. However, it is
recommended that his complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
filing presents two questions. First, whether Plaintiff may
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. Second, whether Plaintiff's complaint states
a plausible claim for relief. Each are discussed below.
Whether Plaintiff May Proceed In Forma
plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment
of fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits
a financial affidavit demonstrating that the plaintiff is
“unable to pay such fees or give security
therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). In his
affidavit, Plaintiff states his gross pay or wages is $0 per
month, his take home pay or wages is $0 per month, and he has
$0 in cash or in a savings account. (ECF No. 1 at 1-2). Based
on this affidavit, the Court finds the Plaintiff is unable to
pay the requisite fees and costs, and his motion to proceed
in forma pauperis is granted.
Whether the Court Should Dismiss Plaintiff's
Court must also review plaintiff's complaint to determine
whether it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on
which the Court may grant relief, or if the complaint seeks
damages against a defendant who is immune from that relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure mandate that a claim must contain a “short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief” and “a demand for relief
sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). When a complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Rule 12(b)(6)
permits dismissal of that claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Plaintiff's claim fails to meet the burden of both Rule
8(a)(2) and 8(a)(3).
Plaintiff's claim fails to meet the pleading standards of
Rule 8's burden, a complaint must contain
“sufficient factual matter” establishing that the
claim is facially plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 663 (2009). Recitation “of a cause of
action's elements supported by mere conclusory
statements” is insufficient to meet this standard.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009)
(internal punctuation omitted). Courts engage in a two-step
process to evaluate these claims. First, the Court must
identify all conclusory allegations that “are not
entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009). Second, the Court must
assess the remaining factual allegations and determine if the
complaint “states a plausible claim” that is
“context specific.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 663-64. A claim meets this facial plausibility
standard when it “allows the court to draw a reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). When a claim does not cross the line from conceivable
to plausible, the Court must dismiss it. Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Courts hold
complaints drafted by pro se plaintiffs to “less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). Courts will dismiss a pro se plaintiff's
complaint “if [it] fails to reasonably inform the
adverse party of the basis for the cause of action.”
Wilkinson v. United States, No. C-92-4095
EFL, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 615 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14,
1993) (citing In re “Santa Barbara Like It Is
Today” Copyright Infringement Litig., 94 F.R.D 105
(D. Nev. 1982)).
pled, Plaintiff's complaint appears to be a criticism of
United States intelligence agencies. The Supreme Court has
“repeatedly held, ” that federal courts are not a
place to resolve generalized grievances, “no matter how
sincere” they may be. Hollingsworth v. Perry,
570 U.S. 693, 705 (2013); see Lance v. Coffman, 549
U.S. 437, 439 (2007) (per curiam) (“Our refusal to
serve as a forum for generalized grievances has a lengthy
unclear from the complaint exactly what Plaintiff's claim
is. Throughout the complaint, Plaintiff lists several
government agencies, which he believes are
“corrupt” and failed to “take [his
warnings] seriously.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 3). Plaintiff
further alleges that he has “material evidences
[sic]” of government-sponsored “collateral
murders” that he is unable to “expose.”
(Id. at 2). It is unclear however how any of these
agencies violated any law, making it impossible for the Court
to decipher the legal basis for the claims Plaintiff is
alleging against the defendant. On the civil cover sheet,
Plaintiff states that the nature of his suit is “440
Other Civil Rights.” (ECF No. 1-2 at 1). In the
description of his claim, he notes that his cause of action
is based on “harassment by the U.S. government agencies
and its community supporters.” (ECF No. 1-2 at 1).
facts alleged in Plaintiff's complaint do not support his
claim, even when viewed in the light most favorable to him.
The complaint fails to cite any facts that are not mere
conclusory statements that entitle him to relief. The Court
finds that Plaintiff's complaint is nothing more than an
airing of his general grievances against the government.
(See ECF No. 1-1 at 5). ...