United States District Court, D. Nevada
JAIME R. SANCHEZ, Plaintiff,
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER (MOT. SERVICE BY USM - ECF NO. 10)
A LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the court on Plaintiff Jaime R.
Sanchez's Motion for Service by Marshals (ECF No. 10).
This Motion is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 of the Local Rules
Sanchez is proceeding in this action pro se, which
means that he is not represented by an attorney. See
LSR 2-1. This case involves Sanchez's allegations of
civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
initially filed this action and paid the $400 filing fee in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
on February 19, 2019. The court ordered a transfer of venue
to the District of Nevada, overruling Sanchez's
objections, because the underlying events took place in Las
Vegas, defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department,
Officer Cooke, and Clark County Courthouse reside in Las
Vegas, and the witnesses and relevant evidence are all in Las
Vegas. See Mar. 5, 2019 Order (ECF No. 7) (citing 28
U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1406(a)).
March 21, 2019, Sanchez filed a motion requesting that the
U.S. Marshal Service (“USM”) serve all three
defendants in this case. He cites no legal authority for his
request and provides no reasons why service of process should
be handled by USM at public expense. Mr. Sanchez is not
proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 and LSR 1-1 of the Local Rules of Practice. The
court must apply “even-handed care” to ensure
that “federal funds are not squandered to underwrite,
at public expense, either frivolous claims” or the
colorable claims of a plaintiff “who is financially
able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own
oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F.Supp. 848,
850 (D.R.I. 1984) (collecting cases); see also Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (recognizing
Congress' concern that “a litigant whose filing
fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a
paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from
filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits”).
The motion is denied.
addition, the court notes that LSR 2-1 of the Local Rules of
Practice states that a “civil rights complaint filed by
a person who is not represented by counsel must be
submitted on the form provided by this court.”
Id. (emphasis added). Sanchez submitted a complaint
on what appears to be lined notebook paper, not the
court's approved form. If Sanchez wants to move forward
with his claims, he must submit an amended complaint on the
court's approved form. The Clerk of Court will be
directed to mail Sanchez a blank civil rights
Sanchez chooses to file an amended complaint, he must do so
by May 16, 2019. The 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 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). This means
Sanchez 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
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 action”).
Sanchez 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). Sanchez
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 complaint should identify
which factual allegations give rise to each particular claim.
McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178. A plaintiff must state
“enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that
discovery will reveal evidence” of the allegations
charged. Cafasso, United States ex rel. v. General
Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir.
2011) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 556 (2007)).
Sanchez is also informed that the court cannot refer to a
prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) in
order to make the amended complaint complete. 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, as a general rule, an amended
complaint supersedes the original complaint. Ramirez v.
County 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.
court appreciates that it is difficult for pro se parties to
litigate their claims; thus, Sanchez is advised to
familiarize himself with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Local Rules of Practice for this court.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff Jaime R. Sanchez's Motion for Service by
Marshals (ECF No. 10) is DENIED.
2. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice
and with leave to file an amended complaint by May
3. The Clerk of Court shall MAIL Mr. Sanchez one blank form
Non-Prisoner Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Pro Se
Form 15), one copy of the Complaint (ECF No. 1), and one copy
of this Order.
4. The amended complaint must be a complete document in and
of itself and will supersede the original complaint in its
entirety. Any allegations, parties, or requests for relief
from prior papers that are not carried forward in the ...