United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS [ECF NO. 1] AND COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 1-1]
FERENBACH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Geraldine Manning's Application
for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1)
and Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff demonstrates an
inability to pay the filing fee, but fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Therefore, the Court grants
her application to proceed in forma pauperis, but
orders that her complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
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.
Manning reports receiving $775.00 per month in Social
Security Income. (ECF No. 1 at 1). She also reports having a
total of $300 in checking or savings accounts. (Id.
at 2). Plaintiff reports no other income or assets.
(Id.). Plaintiff lists no monthly expenses, but the
Court notes the complaint is based on a dispute over her
rent, which could be over $700 per month. (Id.; ECF
No. 1-1 at 2). Based on this information, the Court finds
Plaintiff unable to pay or give security for the filing fee
and grants her application to proceed in forma
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
claims arise from her interactions with Defendant Westland
Village Square Apartments, where she resided from December
2017 to June 2019. (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff brings three
claims titled, “Persecution, ”
“Deprivation, ” and “Discrimination.”
(ECF No. 1-1 at 2-3).
“Persecution” claim, Plaintiff claims Defendant
raised her rent after one month from $514 to $714, in
violation of Defendant's rental agreement with LoveLife
Family Services, a third-party who assisted with
Plaintiff's housing. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2).
“Deprivation” claim, Plaintiff alleges Defendant
erroneously and continuously demanded payment of her rent for
the month of March 2019, even after she paid with late fees
and even after her money order was redeemed on April 4, 2019.
(Id.). Plaintiff claims that, on June 4, 2019,
employees of the Western Village Square Apartment Office
refused her rent payment, citing an outstanding payment from
March. (Id. at 2-3). Plaintiff attempted to explain
she had not missed any rent payments, and “that's
when the Security Guard got in my face, ” kicked her,
and threw her outside. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff claims
she suffered injuries in this altercation. (Id.).
The next day, Plaintiff claims she again attempted to pay her
rent, but “a tall white man stood out front, ”
preventing her from entering the property. (Id. at
3). Plaintiff attempted to enter from “the other side,
” but again was denied entry. (Id.).
“Persecution” claim, Plaintiff alleges that on
June 18, 2019, she and Defendants appeared at an eviction
hearing before “Judge David Brown.” (Id.
at 3-4). Plaintiff claims Defendants admitted failing to give
Plaintiff a 30 day notice of eviction. (Id.).
Plaintiff claims the judge dismissed Defendants eviction
case, waived the late fees, and ordered that Plaintiff should
return to her apartment. (Id. at 4). Pursuant to
this hearing, Plaintiff claims she attempted to pay her rent,
but was again trespassed by Defendant's security
brings her claims under the Fourth Amendment to the United
States Constitution; the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution; and the Fair Housing Act: 42 U.S.C.
§ 3604(a), (b), and (f)(3)(B). (ECF No. 1-1 at 1).