| | __ Se eee

la oy UNITED STATES DISTRICT cpt 26 2019 | 2 | DISTRICT OF NEVADA (Ggcispisinicr Coun 3 | MURRAY LEFFERS, Case:No. 3:19-CV-00327-MMD=Ct : ret EEC □□□ 5 | ~~

6| AMAZON, et al., 7 | Defendants. 8 | Before the Court is Plaintiff Murray Leffers (“Leffers”) application to proceed 9 | forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), and his pro se civil rights complaint (ECF No. 1-1). Fort 10 | reason stated below, the Court recommends that the application to proceed in for i | pauperis (ECF No. 1) be granted and the complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be dismissed w 12 | prejudice. 13| |, INFORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION i | A person may be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if th 15 | person “submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [perso 16 possesses [and] that the person is unable pay such fees or give security therefore. Suc | affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant’s belief th the person is entitled to redress.”

(a)(1); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.: " | 4122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (stating

applies to all actions fil IFP, not just prisoner actions).

35 The Local Rules of Practice for the District of Nevada provide: “Any person wl

33 | is unable to prepay the fees in a civil case may apply to the court for authority to proce

74 [IFP]. The application must be made on the form provided by the court and must inclu

5 | a financial affidavit disclosing the applicant's income, assets, expenses, and liabilitie: LSR1-1.

' This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M. | 28 | United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistr | Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and LR IB 1-4.

1 .. “[T]he supporting affidavit [must] state the facts as to [the] affiant’s poverty wit 2 | some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” U.S. v. McQuade,

, 940 □□□ 3 | Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A litigant need not “be absolute 4 | destitute to enjoy the benefits of the statute.” Adkins v. E.!. Du Pont de Nemours & Cc 5}

(1948). 6 | A review of the application to proceed IFP reveals Leffers cannot pay the filing fe 7 | therefore, the Court recommends that the application be granted. 8| I | SCREENING STANDARD ? | Applications to proceed in forma pauperis are governed by

: Section 1915 provides, in relevant part, that “the court shall dismiss the case at any tim if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fai 12 | to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against 'S | defendant who is immune from such relief.”

(e)(2)(B). Dismissal of 4 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is provided for i | Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the court applies the same standard unde . □ section 1915 when reviewing the adequacy of a complaint or amended complaint. Se

iB Resnick v. Hayes,

(9th Cir. 2000). 19 | Under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must dismiss the complaint if it fails to “state 20 | claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 54¢ 1 570 (2007). Courts accept as true all well-pled factual allegations, set aside legs 22 | conclusions, and verify that the factual allegations state a plausible claim for relie 23 | Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). Although the complaint need not contai 24 | detailed factual allegations, it must offer more than “a formulaic recitation of the element 25 | of acause of action” and “raise a right to relief above a speculative level.” Twombly, 55 26| U.S. at 555. 27 | The complaint is construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Chubb Custor 28 | Ins. Co. v. Space Systems/Loral Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2013). The court mus

| -2-

1 accept as true all well-pled factual allegations, set aside legal conclusions, and veri 2 | that the factual allegations state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 □□ 3 | 662, 679 (2009). The complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, but mu: 4 | offer more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” and “raise 5 right to relief above a speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Particular care ©! taken in reviewing the pleadings of a pro se party, for a more forgiving standard applie 7 to litigants not represented by counsel. Hebbe v. Pliler,

(9th Ci sy 2010). Still, a liberal construction may not be used to supply an essential element of th | claim not initially pled. Pena v. Gardner,

(9th Cir. 1992). If dismiss: 10 | is appropriate, a pro se plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint and notic | of its deficiencies, unless it is clear that those deficiencies cannot be cured. Cato \ United States,

, 1107 (9th Cir. 1995). | lil. © SCREENING OF COMPLAINT "4 On June 14, 2019, Leffers filed a civil rights complaint with the Court alleging “ 8 | 1,000 counts or more” against numerous defendants, including Amazon’s founder a1 ° | chairman, Jeff Bezos. (ECF No. 1-1 at 6). Leffers seeks “2 billion dollars[,] Bezos "7 | money” for “5 — books in stages of development [and] a 36 page 14,178 word run-c | sentence,” which Amazon added their “secret code” to. (/d. at 1-5, 10). | The complaint appears to be based on fantastic scenarios lacking any arguab | factual basis. Leffers states that he seeks “2 billion dollars[,] Bezos lunch money” for I | — books in stages of development [and] a 36 page 14,178 word run-on sentence,” whic | Amazon added their “secret code” to. (/d. at 1-5, 10). Leffers also states he fe °° | defendants were “doing something untoward” and provides a narrative of what he occurred regarding his book. (/d. at 10-17). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a); | requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing th: *° | the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation ar 8 | alteration omitted). Leffers’ largely incomprehensible narrative makes it nearly impossib

1; for the court to identify the factual or legal basis for his claims. 2 | Leffers states no claim upon which relief may be granted, and given the vag! 3 | nature of the allegations, amendment would be futile. See Cato, 70 F.3d at 11C 4 | Accordingly, the Court will recommend that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 5| IV. CONCLUSION 6 | Consistent with the foregoing, the Court finds dismissal is warranted under : 7 | U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because amendment would be futile, the dismissal should | 8 | with prejudice. See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1106. 9 | The parties are advised: 10 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule IB 3-2 of the Local Rules 11 Practice, the parties may file specific written objections to this report and recommendatic 12 | within fourteen days of receipt. These objections should be entitled “Objections 13 | Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” and should be accompanied by poin 14 and authorities for consideration by the District Court. 15 | 2. This report and recommendation is not an appealable order and any notic 16 | of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the Distri 17 | Court’s judgment. 18 | V. RECOMMENDATION 19 | IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs application to proceed | 20 | forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) be granted; 21 | IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk FILE plaintiffs complaint (EC No. 1-1); and 23 | IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint (ECF No. 1-1) b 24 | DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 25 | DATED: August 26, 2019. CK) | eee AGISTRATE JUDGE 27 | 28

| 4.