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.

Spotted Bear v. Sheahan

United States District Court, D. Nevada

August 14, 2019

JERED LEE SPOTTEDBEAR and JOANN SPOTTEDBEAR, Plaintiff,
v.
SEAN SHEAHAN, et al., Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE [[1]]

         Before the court is Plaintiffs' Jared and Joann Spottedbear's (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) first amended complaint. (ECF No. 12). Having thoroughly reviewed the record, the Court recommends that the first amended complaint (“FAC”) be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend for the reasons stated below.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Proceeding pro se, Plaintiffs filed the instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various claims against numerous Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court screened Plaintiffs' complaint February 22, 2019. (ECF No. 8.) The Court determined the claims against the Reno Justice Court, the Second Judicial District Court, Facebook, and Tinder, failed as a matter of law and were dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. (Id.) The Court also determined the claims against the Washoe County Sheriff's Office, Sean Sheahan and M.S.[2] failed to state a decipherable claim and to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) These claims were dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. (Id.)

         In the initial screening order, the Court advised Plaintiffs they needed to explain how each defendant was connected to Plaintiffs' harm and what allegations they were making against each defendant. (Id.) Furthermore, the Court advised Plaintiffs they needed to state, in a short and plain statement, factual allegations sufficient to put the defendants on notice. (Id.)

         On March 22, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 12.) The FAC names the following defendants: Sean Sheahan, M.S., Tinder Adult Site[3], and the Washoe County Sheriff's Office (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). The Court will now re-screen Plaintiffs' FAC to determine whether Plaintiffs have stated a cognizable claim for relief.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Federal courts must screen in forma pauperis complaints and amended complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915. Specifically, federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and this Court applies the same standard under Section 1915(e)(2) when reviewing the adequacy of a complaint or amended complaint. See Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011). When the Court reviews a complaint under this standard, it accepts as true all the plaintiff's allegations and construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Systems/Loral Inc., 710 F.3d 946, 956 (9th Cir. 2013). The Court takes particular care when reviewing the pleadings of a pro se party. In this instance, a more forgiving standard applies to litigants not represented by counsel. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010). This Court is to “construe pro se filings liberally . . . and to ‘afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.'” Id.

         Although the standard is broad, it is not limitless. Despite the leniency afforded to pro se plaintiffs, the Court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions, or unreasonable inferences. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, the complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Stated differently, the complaint must allege sufficient facts to state a claim “that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

         III. DISCUSSION

         The Court takes the facts from Plaintiffs' complaint as true and has discerned the substance of the complaint as best possible. Plaintiffs allege M.S., a fifteen year old girl, lied to the police about having sex with Jared Spottedbear and she actually had sex with another man, which the police failed to investigate. (ECF No. 12 at 3.) The police “used their guns and badges” to “[a]buse [sic] the Federal Law of International Treaty Agreement” and violate the Patriot Act regarding Jared Spottedbear's case. (Id.) As a result, Plaintiffs allege Jared Spottedbear has suffered “mental emotional physical and inhuman abuse.” (Id. at 3-4.) Additionally, Plaintiffs assert they and the Court have agreed to the 1851 Fort Laramie treaty, which was violated in the matters at issue. (Id. at 1-6.)

         The complaint fails to state a claim.

         A. Failure to State a Claim

         After reviewing Plaintiffs' first amended complaint, the Court finds the proposed amended claims did not cure the pleading deficiencies identified in the Screening Order. (ECF No. 8.) The FAC recycles the same conclusory allegations the Court informed Plaintiffs were insufficient as a matter of law. (Id.)

         Plaintiffs' FAC still fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) ...


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.