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.

Hudson Hale v. Hale

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 14, 2019

MICHELLE R. HUDSON HALE, Plaintiff,
v.
WILMER HALE, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [ECF NO. 1] AND COMPLAINT [ECF NO.1-1]

          CAM FERENBACH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Michelle R. Hudson Hale's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and amended complaint (ECF No. 1-1). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application is granted. However, Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

         DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff's filings present two questions: (1) whether she may proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and (2) whether her complaint states a plausible claim for relief.

         I. Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Is Granted

         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). Plaintiff's application states that she receives $700 per month from disability and Social security. (ECF No. 1 at 1). Plaintiff's monthly expenses total $1000. (Id. at 2). Based on this information, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay fees in this case. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

         II. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Fails to State a Claim Upon Which the Court May Grant Relief

         Section 1915 also 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).

         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).

         Plaintiff's statement of her breach of contract claim is a single paragraph that is very difficult to follow. (ECF No. 1-1 at 6). Plaintiff appears to broadly assert that Defendants failed to transfer accounts and real estate from the Estate of Peter Hale to Plaintiff. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that this caused damages from lost real estate, lost wages, lost stock accounts, and pain and suffering. (Id.).

         However, Plaintiff fails to explain how any particular Defendant was involved. Plaintiff lists 11 Defendants-four attorneys, a caregiver, three banks, and three stockbrokers.[1] (Id. at 2-4). Plaintiff does not state what contracts any Defendant was operating under, what the terms of the contracts are, or how any Defendant breached their contracts. Plaintiff does not give any dates or facts to support her assertion that the Defendants have breached their contracts. Plaintiff also fails to explain how the Defendants' actions caused her alleged damages.

         Dismissing the complaint without prejudice will allow Plaintiff the opportunity to amend her complaint to make her allegations clearer. The Court cautions Plaintiff that “when 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.

         ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma ...


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.