United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
action, filed by Alfonso Villalobos
(“Plaintiff”), was commenced on July 10, 2018
with an Application for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and attached
Complaint. (ECF Nos. 1 & 1-1). Plaintiff is proceeding
has submitted the Affidavit required by § 1915(a), and
demonstrates an inability to prepay fees or costs or give
security for them. (ECF No. 1). Therefore, the request to
proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
Court will now screen Plaintiff's Complaint. (ECF No.
1-1). Upon granting a request to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court must additionally screen the
Complaint pursuant to § 1915. Federal courts may dismiss
actions that are “frivolous or malicious, ” that
fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
which seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). When a court
dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should
be 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 could not be cured by
amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,
1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
Court additionally has a duty to ensure that it has subject
matter jurisdiction over the disputes before it. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); see also Kwai Fun Wong v.
Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations
omitted) (finding that the Court has a sua sponte
obligation to ensure subject matter jurisdiction). Federal
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only
that power authorized by the Constitution and statute.
See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511
U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
case, Plaintiff alleges federal jurisdiction under Section
1983. To state a claim under section 1983, a
plaintiff must allege that a right secured by the
Constitution has been violated, and the deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (citation
omitted). Plaintiff's Complaint does not allege any
specific facts giving rise to a Section 1983 violation
conducted by any of the Defendants identified. He does not
provide any facts to show that any Defendant acted under
color of law to violate his rights. Plaintiff therefore fails
to state a claim for a Section 1983 violation.
Court also finds that the facts Plaintiff does allege appear
to amount to an employment issue governed by state law. He
alleges facts related to quitting his job and a job
interview. The Court does not find that these allegations
constitute a Section 1983 claim, and even construed
liberally, do not invoke a federal question at all. Further,
to the extent Plaintiff appeals or objects to a determination
made by state court officials pursuant to state law, there is
no basis for federal jurisdiction as Plaintiff does not
allege that this state court determination involved federal
law. As the claims arise under state law and Plaintiff does
not allege diversity of citizenship, there is no federal
question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § § 1331 or
Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief,
and also finds that there is no subject matter jurisdiction,
the instant Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The
Court finds that amendment of the Complaint would be futile
as Plaintiff has not remotely identified any claims that
would entitle him to relief against the identified
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff s Application
for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1)
is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall not be required to pay the filing
fee of four hundred dollars ($400.00).
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall
file the Complaint.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED
without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter
judgment accordingly and close this case.
 The screening requirement is not
limited to prisoner actions. See, e.g., Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)
(“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis