Sun v. Johnson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

* * * JIANMIN SUN, Case No. 2:21-cv-02180-APG-EJY

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v.

RACHEL L. JOHNSON, and CARRIE TEAGER,

Defendants.

On December 10, 2021, Defendant Rachel L. Johnson, filed an incomplete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), attached to which is a Notice of Removal, a Complaint filed in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Dupage County, Illinois, a Certificate of Service, and a Civil Cover Sheet. ECF Nos. 1–1-4.

I. In Forma Pauperis Application

Defendant’s IFP application is incomplete. Defendant failed to fill in the blanks or answer any questions on the form. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada Local Rule LSR 1-1, “[a]ny person who is unable to prepay the fees in a civil case may apply to the court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The application must be made on the form provided by the court and must include a financial affidavit disclosing the applicant’s income, assets, expenses, and liabilities.” Because Defendant’s IFP application is incomplete, her request to proceed without prepaying fees is denied without prejudice.

II. Screening the Complaint

As stated above, Defendant’s IFP application was accompanied by a Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1-1), a Complaint filed in Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Dupage County, Illinois (ECF No. 1-2), a Certificate of Service (ECF No. 1-3), and a Civil Cover Sheet (ECF No. 1-4). Defendant fails to establish this Court has subject matter or personal jurisdiction over the parties. Subject matter jurisdiction arises from a federal question or diversity of the parties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. jurisdiction comports with due process.” Southport Lane Equity II, LLC v. Downey, 177 F. Supp. 2 3d 1286, 1290 (D. Nev. 2016) citing Greenspun v. Del E. Webb Corp., 634 F.2d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 1980). “When no federal statute governs personal jurisdiction, a federal court applies the law of the forum state.” Id. citing Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). Where a state, such as Nevada, has a “long-arm” statute providing “jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a court need only address federal due process standards.” Id. citing Arbella Mut. Ins. Co. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 509, 134 P.3d 710, 712 (2006) (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.065); Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1015. Under these standards, a defendant must generally have “certain minimum contacts” with the forum state before personal jurisdiction will be established. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).

Personal jurisdiction may be established in one of two ways: “general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction.” Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1016; see also Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 413–414 (1984). In this case, Defendant pleads no facts in support of Nevada’s exercise of personal jurisdiction under either theory. ECF No. 1-2. In fact, Defendant fails to make any claims regarding any party’s relationship with the State of Nevada.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send Defendant the approved form application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner, as well as the document entitled information and instructions for filing an in forma pauperis application.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before January 14, 2022, Defendant shall either: (1) file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915(a) and LSR 1-1; or (2) pay the full $402 fee for filing a civil action (which includes the $350 filing fee and the $52 administrative fee).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant is directed to show cause, in writing, no later than January 14, 2022, why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to timely comply with the terms of this Order will result in a recommendation to dismiss this action without prejudice.

Dated this 16th day of December, 2021.

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE