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.

Kjalasan v. United States

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 15, 2018

MILAN KJALASAN, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendants.

         Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) and Complaint (ECF No. 1-1)

          ORDER & REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

         BACKGROUND

         Before 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.

         DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff's 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.

         I. Whether Plaintiff May Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

         A 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.

         II. Whether the Court Should Dismiss Plaintiff's Claim.

         The 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).

         a. Plaintiff's claim fails to meet the pleading standards of Rule 8(a)(2).

         To meet 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)).

         As 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 pedigree.”).

         It is 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).

         The 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). ...


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.