United States District Court, D. Nevada
WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
plaintiff Charles Coleman, Jr. brings this lawsuit regarding
a discrimination dispute. Coleman moves to proceed in
forma pauperis. (IFP Application (ECF No. 1).) Coleman
submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)
showing an inability to prepay fees or costs or give security
for them. Coleman's request to proceed in forma
pauperis therefore will be granted. The court now
screens Coleman's complaint (ECF No. 1-1) as required by
28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915(e)(2).
granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a
court must screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify
cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous,
malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Dismissal for failure to state a claim under §
1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for failure to state a
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.
2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must
“contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints
and may only dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt
that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his claim which would entitle him to relief.”
Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014)
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a
claim, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and
construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Wyler Summit P'ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc.,
135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).
Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff must provide more
than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action is
insufficient. Id. Unless it is clear the
complaint's deficiencies could not be cured through
amendment, a pro se plaintiff should be given leave to amend
the complaint with notice regarding the complaint's
deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,
1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
Screening the complaint
complaint consists of a complaint caption with the words
“Discrimination, race, retaliation, Civil Rights
violation” underneath and an EEOC Right to Sue letter.
(ECF No. 1-1.) Plaintiff's complaint contains no factual
allegations. Even liberally construing Coleman's
complaint, he does not state sufficient factual allegations
about the underlying dispute and the defendant's role in
the matter to state a claim.
Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the document
must be titled “Amended Complaint.” The amended
complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court's jurisdiction. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Additionally, the amended complaint must
contain a short and plain statement describing the underlying
case and each defendant's involvement in the case.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading standard,
Coleman still must give each defendant fair notice of his
claims against it and of Coleman's entitlement to relief.
Coleman is advised that if he files an amended complaint, the
original complaint (ECF No. 1-1) no longer serves any
function in this case. As such, the amended complaint must be
complete in and of itself without reference to prior
pleadings or other documents. The court cannot refer to a
prior pleading or other documents to make Coleman's
amended complaint complete.
THEREFORE ORDERED that Coleman's application to proceed
in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff
is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without
prepaying fees or costs or giving security for them.
FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court must detach and
separately file ...