United States District Court, D. Nevada
FOLEY, JR., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Application to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1), filed
February 28, 2019.
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
filed this instant action and attached a financial affidavit
to his Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF
No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff alleges
reverse racial discrimination claims in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title
VII”). See Compl. (ECF No. 1-1). Reviewing
Plaintiff's financial affidavit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to
pre-pay the filing fee. As a result, Plaintiff's
application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
Screening the Complaint
granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must
additionally screen a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e). Specifically, federal courts are given 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/third
party plaintiff who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). A complaint, or portion thereof, should be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, “if it appears beyond a doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims
that would entitle him to relief. Buckey v. Los
Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992). A complaint
may be dismissed as frivolous if it is premised on a
nonexistent legal interest or delusional factual scenario.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
Moreover, “a finding of factual frivolousness is
appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the
irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are
judicially noticeable facts available to contradict
them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33
(1992). When a court dismisses a complaint under §
1915(e), 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 shall liberally construe a complaint by a pro se
litigant. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137
(9th Cir. 2007). This is especially important for civil
rights complaints. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). However, a liberal construction
may not be used to supply an essential element of the claim
absent from the complaint. Bruns v. Nat'l Credit
Union Admin., 12 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997)
(quoting Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268
(9th Cir. 1982)).
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that
a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Rule 8(d)(1) requires that “[e]ach allegation must be
simple, concise, and direct.” The purpose of Rule 8 is
to enable the court to determine whether the plaintiff has
stated “a plausible claim for relief.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The
Rule 8(a)(2) pleading standard does not require detailed
factual allegations. Id. at 678. However, to state a
plausible claim for relief, a complaint must contain both
sufficient factual allegations (i.e. names, dates, and facts)
and legal conclusions (i.e., specific laws defendants
allegedly violated) that create a reasonable inference of
liability. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79. A
complaint that merely offers “labels and
conclusions” will be dismissed. Id.
Plaintiff's complaint fails to satisfy Rule 8's
standards and instead contains two conclusory sentences
wherein Plaintiff alleges that his rights were violated under
Title VII based on reverse race discrimination. Without being
provided further the Court is unable to determine whether
Plaintiffs claim may proceed. For this reason, the Court must
dismiss Plaintiffs complaint with leave to amend to correct
the noted deficiency.
Plaintiff elects to proceed in this action by filing an
amended complaint, he is informed that the court cannot refer
to a prior pleading in order to make his amended complaint
complete. Local Rule 15-1 requires that an amended complaint
be complete in itself without reference to any prior
pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended
complaint supersedes the original complaint. See
Valdez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851, 857 (9th Cir.
2011); see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th
Cir.1967). Once Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the
original pleading no longer serves any function in the case.
Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original
complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant
must be sufficiently alleged. Accordingly, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed
in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1), is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall
retain the Complaint (ECF No. 1-2).
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until
June 28, 2019 ...