United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (EFC
NO. 1) AND COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1-1)
Ferenbach, United States Magistrate Judge.
the Court are pro se plaintiff Peter Meyers's
application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1)
and complaint (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff's in forma
pauperis application is granted and his complaint is
dismissed without prejudice.
filings present two questions: (1) whether Williams may
proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a) and (2) whether Williams's complaint states a
plausible claim for relief.
Plaintiff Meyers May Proceed In Forma
's application to proceed in forma pauperis is
granted. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), all parties
instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a
district court of the United States, except an application
for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. An
action may proceed despite a plaintiff's failure to
prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave
to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d
1176, 1177 (9th Cir.1999). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),
a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without
prepayment of fees or security therefor” if such person
submits an affidavit demonstrating that the person is
“unable to pay such fees or give security
application to proceed in forma pauperis includes a
completed application to proceed in district court without
prepaying fees or costs. Plaintiff's application declares
under penalty of perjury that he is unable to pay the costs
of these proceedings and declares that his gross wages and
take-home wages equal zero dollars per month. Plaintiff
declares that in the past twelve months, he received income
from his position as a poker dealer until August 13, 2019.
Plaintiff reports he has $800 in his checking or savings
account. Plaintiff's regular monthly expenses total $1,
020 per month and has debt relating to his car loan.
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted.
Plaintiff's Complaint Fails to State a Claim Upon Which
the Court May Grant Relief
the Court has granted an application to proceed in forma
pauperis, it must review plaintiff's complaint to
determine whether the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a plausible claim. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)
provides that a complaint must contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is
entitled to relief.” The Supreme Court's decision
in Ashcroft v. Iqbal states that to satisfy Rule
8's requirements, a complaint's allegations must
cross “the line from conceivable to plausible.”
556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007)). Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. A complaint should be dismissed under Rule
12(b)(6) "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).
pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976)). If the 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. Cato v.
United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
Meyers filed a complaint against Uber Eats, Uber, and Checkr.
(ECF No. 1-1 at 1). Meyers alleges defendants mishandled his
personal information, presented him with false information,
ignored his responses, and suspended his Uber Eats driver
account, thereby causing plaintiff to lose $400 dollars per
week in wages he would have received had his driver's
account not been suspended. (ECF No. 1-1 at 1). Plaintiff
emailed Checkr after discovering his Uber Eats driver account
was in a suspended status. (ECF No. 1-1 at 9). In response,
defendant Checkr informed plaintiff that the licensing
information they have on file indicates that plaintiff's
Louisiana license has been cancelled. (ECF No. 1-1 at 8).
Plaintiff has attempted to correct Checkr's information
by providing his current Nevada license number, but his
attempts have been unsuccessful. (ECF No. 1-1 at 7).
indicates on his civil cover sheet that the basis of
jurisdiction for this suit is federal question and the nature
of the suit is civil rights relating to employment.
Jurisdiction would be proper in this Court if it were clear
on the face of the complaint that there is a federal question
where the cause of action is created by federal law.
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211
U.S. 149, 152 (1908). Plaintiff's complaint has not
stated a claim under federal law that provides a legal
entitlement to a remedy.
could also be proper in this Court under diversity
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 provides “[t]he
district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between . . . citizens of different States.” For
diversity jurisdiction to exist, a plaintiff would need to
indicate the citizenship of every party to show that each
plaintiff is a citizen of a different state from each
defendant. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger,
437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978). Plaintiff here has not indicated
the citizenship of the parties and has not alleged the amount
in controversy exceeds $75, 000. Plaintiff's complaint
alleges that he has lost $400 per week since plaintiff's
account was suspended on September 14, 2019, making
plaintiff's alleged loss approximately $3, 600. This
amount does not exceed $75, 000. Plaintiff also did not plead
that each defendant is a citizen of a different state than
complaint fails to state facts supporting a claim upon which
relief can be granted that would fall under the jurisdiction
of this court. ...