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.

Bryant v. Casio

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 3, 2019

EMANUEL BRYANT, Plaintiff,
v.
CASIO, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 6]

          CAM FERENBACH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Emanuel Bryant's amended complaint. (ECF No. 6). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

         BACKGROUND

         The Court previously granted Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 3) and dismissed his complaint without prejudice (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint, though it is titled as a “Motion for Amended Complaint.” (ECF No. 6).

         The amended complaint does not list or describe the Defendants. (Compare ECF No. 1-1 at 1-2 with ECF No. 6 at 1). The amended complaint alleges that Casio has violated Plaintiff's rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (ECF No. 6 at 1). Plaintiff asserts that Casio ignored Plaintiff's complaints that a watch permanently scarred him based on Plaintiff's race. (Id. at 1-2).

         DISCUSSION

         28 U.S.C. § 1915 requires that, should the Court grant an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must review Plaintiff's complaint to determine whether the complaint 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). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 mandates that a claim must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). 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). Courts must liberally construe pleadings drafted by pro se litigants. Resnick v. Warden Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988)).

         A. The Amended Complaint Must Be Complete in Itself

         “[W]hen a plaintiff files an amended complaint, ‘[t]he amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.'” Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.1967)). An amended complaint must be “complete in itself, including exhibits, without reference to the superseded pleading.” LR 15-1.

         Plaintiff's original complaint contained a description of the Defendants. (ECF No. 1-1 at 1-2). This description is not contained in the amended complaint. (ECF No. 6 at 1). The Court can only evaluate the amended complaint, because it has replaced the original complaint in this case.[1] Because there is information in the original complaint that has been omitted from the amended complaint, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's amended complaint without prejudice. This will give Plaintiff the opportunity to submit a second amended complaint that contains all of the information at issue in this case.

         B. Plaintiff's Claim is Difficult to Follow

         Though “[n]o technical form is required for complaints (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)), “[a] party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances. …If doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence…must be stated in a separate count or defense” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

         In the amended complaint, Plaintiff broadly asserts that he “tried contacting Casio directly on numerous occasions to get a resolution, ” but he was “consistently ignored.” (ECF No. 6 at 2). Plaintiff then lists several responses he received from Casio without indicating when they took place. (Id.). Plaintiff also makes contradictory allegations regarding Casio's alleged bias against him. Plaintiff states that Casio only responded to his communications once he sent a certified demand letter containing photographs. (Id.). However, Plaintiff also states that “[o]nce they learned that [he] was African-American because of the pictures…they ceased being cooperative.” (Id.).

         Attached to the amended complaint are dozens of pages of exhibits. (Id. at 3-61). However, the amended complaint does not explain what the exhibits are or cite to them. The Court will not go through almost 60 pages of exhibits to try and determine how, or whether, they support Plaintiff's vague allegations in his complaint. Dismissing the amended ...


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.