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.

Sears v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 15, 2019

LAMARIO SEARS, Plaintiff,
v.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPT. et al., Defendants.

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

          CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Lamario Sears' Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff did not submit a complete application. Therefore, the Court denies his application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice.

         IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION

         Every potential plaintiff must pay a filling fee to commence a civil action in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The Court may allow a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, without prepayment of the filing fee, if the plaintiff can demonstrate an inability to pay or give security for the fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The presiding judge has discretion to determine whether the plaintiff is unable to pay or give security. Lasko v. Hampton & Hampton Collections, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-01110-APG-VCF, 2015 WL 5009787, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 21, 2015). The judge bases this determination on the information submitted by the plaintiff. Id.

         Plaintiff Sears did not file the first page of his in forma pauperis application. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff states he has no money in any bank account (ECF No. 1 at 2), but later reports a current account balance of $49.58 in his prison account. (ECF No. 1 at 4). Because Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application is incomplete and inconsistent, the Court cannot grant it at this time.

         SECTION 1915(e) SCREENING

         Even if the Court grants an in forma pauperis application, it must screen the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court must dismiss a case if the action is legally frivolous or malicious, seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Relief can be granted on a claim if it contains sufficient facts that, when accepted as true, make the claim plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In making this determination, the presiding judge accepts all material allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Russell v. Landrieu, 621 F.2d 1037, 1039-42 (9th Cir. 1980).

         The Court is not required to screen Plaintiff's complaint at this time because his in forma pauperis application has been denied. The Court gives Plaintiff guidance on potential issues in his complaint that he should consider addressing if he re-submits an in forma pauperis application in this case. See generally Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988) (discussing the court's duty to ensure pro se litigants do not lose their rights because of technical procedural requirements).

         I. Background

         Plaintiff Sears' Complaint arises from his arrest by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”) and subsequent detention. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3, 5). Plaintiff claims that on August 25, 2019, he and his family were subjected to unreasonable force in their home as officers executed an arrest warrant on Plaintiff. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff claims the arresting officers threatened him and his wife with guns, screamed obscenities, used a bullhorn, threatened to unleash police dogs on his wife, and held his daughter “at the end of our street while in her mother's car.” (Id.). Plaintiff also alleges mistreatment by a judge during his court appearance on February 4, 2019, which the Court cannot read. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff claims that, while detained beginning on February 5, 2019, he was denied medical treatment, which he needed after a “near-fatal car crash, ” in October. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff brings claims for violations of his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and several federal statutes. (Id. at 4-9).

         II. Discussion

         Although the Court accepts all facts as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff as far as it is able, the Court does not understand significant portions of Plaintiff's compliant due to illegibility. Specifically, the letters and words are spaced too narrowly and at times the words are written too lightly. Some portions that are legible are incomplete, such as the ending of the supporting facts under Count I. (ECF No. 1-1 at 4). Should Plaintiff re-submit his in forma pauperis application, Plaintiff must allege specific facts under each cause of action that make each claim plausible. Plaintiff must present the facts in a legible manner, specifically those regarding:

1. Names of defendants in the complaint. (ECF No. ...

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.