United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (Docket Nos. 4, 6, 7)
J. KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Plaintiff is proceeding in this
action pro se and has requested authority pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma
pauperis. Docket No. 4. On May 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed
a complaint alleging issues with her housing conditions and
subsequent retaliatory conduct. See generally Docket
No. 1-1. On May 16, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show
cause why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice
due to Plaintiff's failure to assert either federal
question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Docket No.
3. Plaintiff has now filed a response and an amended response
to the Court's order to show cause. Docket Nos. 5,
Plaintiff has also filed an amended complaint. Docket No. 7.
In Forma Pauperis Application
has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a).
Docket No. 4. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has an
inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them.
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma
pauperis will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). The Court will now review Plaintiff's amended
granting an application to proceed in forma
pauperis, courts additionally screen the complaint
pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the
authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally
“frivolous or malicious, ” fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 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).
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for
dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Review under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law.
See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723
(9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual
allegations, it demands “more than labels and
conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v.
Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The court must accept
as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the
complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal
conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Mere recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by
conclusory allegations, do not suffice. Id. at 678.
Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed
the line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint should
be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Allegations
of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Hebbe
v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010)
(finding that liberal construction of pro se
pleadings is required after Twombly and
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
submits that the Court has both federal question jurisdiction
and diversity jurisdiction. See generally Docket No.
Federal Question Jurisdiction
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only
that power authorized by the Constitution and statute.
See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have
original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States.” Cases “arise under” federal law
either when federal law creates the cause of action or where
the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turns
on the construction of federal law. Republican Party of
Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir.
2002). Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists is based
on the “well-pleaded complaint rule, ” which
provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a
federal question is presented on the face of the
plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.”
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392
(1987); see also Docket No. 3.
instant case, Plaintiff's amended response to the order
to show cause and amended complaint assert claims under the
Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, and the First Amendment of
the United States Constitution. Docket No. 6 at 1; see
also Docket No. 7 at 11, 22-23. Claims under these
statutes and the U.S. Constitution invoke the Court's
federal question jurisdiction.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have
original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases
“where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75, 000” and where the matter is between
“citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. §
1332. In the instant case, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate
that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on
diversity. Plaintiff submits that only two Defendants,
Pacifica Companies and Pacifica S.D. Management, are
headquartered in California and, therefore, are diverse.
Docket No. 6 at 2; see also 28 U.S.C. §
1332(c)(1). As to the remaining two Defendants, Plaintiff
fails to sufficiently assert diversity of citizenship.
Id. (Plaintiff submits that “Pacific Solevita
LLC is listed as [the] owner of [the] property where
Plaintiff resides” and that Solevita Condominiums
Homeowners Association is registered as a non-profit under
Nevada law); see Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358
F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that to establish