Mkhitaryan v. County of Clark

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * Sergey Mkhitaryan, Case No. 2:22-cv-00221-JAD-BNW 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. County of Clark, Defendant.

11 Pro se Plaintiff filed documents initiating this case on February 4, 2022. ECF No. 1.

12 Plaintiff paid the filing fee, but he is a prisoner suing a government entity. See id. Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must screen Plaintiff’s complaint.

14 I. ANALYSIS 15 A. Screening standard 16 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).

27 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).

2 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. 4 544, 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).

8 B. Screening the Complaint 9 The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint. See ECF No. 1. What exactly Plaintiff is alleging and trying to bring suit for is unclear. See id. Plaintiff makes various allegations (all seemingly related to his underlying criminal case) ranging from Defendant illegally raising his bail, disobeying orders, delaying the production of Brady material, violating international law by kidnapping Plaintiff, filing an indictment without dismissing an information, violating Plaintiff’s speedy trial rights, the court lacking jurisdiction, etc. See id. 15 Even liberally construing Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court is unable to determine exactly what claims Plaintiff is attempting to allege and cannot evaluate whether Plaintiff states any claims for relief. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend to file a more manageable complaint. See Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S.Ct. 1885, 1891 (2016) (holding that the Supreme Court “has long recognized that a district court possesses inherent powers that are ‘governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’”). To help Plaintiff file a properly formatted complaint, the Court now advises Plaintiff of the following requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is also advised that failure to comply with these rules when drafting and filing his amended complaint may result in this action being dismissed.

26 First, Plaintiff is advised that he must specify which claims he is alleging against which defendant(s). Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, defendant. Specifically, he must allege facts showing how each named defendant is involved and the approximate dates of their involvement. Put another way, Plaintiff should tell the Court, in plain language, what each defendant did to him and when. “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported with factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

6 Second, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be short and plain. The simpler and more concise Plaintiff’s complaint, the easier it is for the Court to understand and screen it. The Federal Rules also require this. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). “[E]ach claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.” Id. 14 Third, Plaintiff may not raise multiple unrelated claims in a single lawsuit. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a litigant to raise unrelated claims involving different defendants in a single action. A basic lawsuit is a single claim against a single defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple claims to the lawsuit when those claims are against the same defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple parties to a lawsuit where the right to relief arises out of the “same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A). “However, unrelated claims that involve different defendants must be brought in separate lawsuits.” Bryant v. Romero, No. 1:12-CV-02074-DLB PC, 2013 WL 5923108, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2013) (citing George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)). This rule is intended to avoid confusion, which arises out of bloated lawsuits.

25 Lastly, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete in and of itself. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and, thus, the amended complaint must be complete by itself. See Hal Roach || “[t]he fact that a party was named in the original complaint is irrelevant; an amended pleading || supersedes the original”); see also Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) || cholding that for claims dismissed with prejudice, a plaintiff is not required to reallege such || claims in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal). Plaintiff's amended |} complaint must contain all claims, defendants, and factual allegations that Plaintiff wishes to || pursue in this lawsuit. Moreover, Plaintiff must file his amended complaint on this Court’s || approved form, which the Clerk of Court will send Plaintiff.

8 || IL. CONCLUSION 9 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed || without prejudice and with leave to amend.

11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the || prisoner, pro se form complaint.

13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, he must || do so by March 8, 2022. If Plaintiff chooses not to amend his complaint, this Court will || recommend that his case be dismissed.

17 DATED: February 8, 2022.

18 Giswt Ween BRENDA WEKSLER 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE