1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Paul Jones, Case No. 2:22-cv-00585-RFB-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 Mace DiGiacomo, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Plaintiff, Paul Jones, filed documents initiating this case on April 6, 2022. ECF No. 1. 11 Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by

(a) showing an inability to prepay 12 fees or costs or give security for them.

Accordingly, the Court will grant his request to proceed 13 in forma pauperis. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s complaint. 14 I. Analysis 15 A. Screening Standard 16 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 17 under

(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 18 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 19 granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for 21 failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668

(9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 23 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 24 v. Iqbal,

(2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 25 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 26 his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan,

(9th Cir. 27 2014) (quoting Iqbal,

). 1 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of 2 material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler 3 Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc.,

, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 4 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff 5 must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient.

But 7 unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se 8 plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s 9 deficiencies. Cato v. United States,

(9th Cir. 1995). 10 B. Screening the Complaint 11 Plaintiff’s complaint is short and somewhat confusing. From what the Court can 12 understand, Plaintiff alleges that some state criminal charges against him were dismissed in 13 September 2017. However, Mace DiGiacomo and Pamela Weckerly (both district attorneys) later 14 re-filed these charges. Plaintiff claims that the State of Nevada did not properly investigate his 15 case. For example, he claims that the state alleged that a homicide occurred before the coroner 16 determined the cause of death. He also alleges that the state rendered a “faulty verdict of the 17 facts.” Plaintiff titles his claim “malicious prosecution and malpractice” but also claims he was 18 falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned, and that his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were 19 violated. Judge Togliatti and the two district attorneys are named as defendants. 20 Plaintiff seeks damages under

for violation of his constitutional rights. 21 If a § 1983 case seeking damages alleges constitutional violations that would necessarily imply 22 the invalidity of a conviction or sentence, the prisoner must establish that the underlying sentence 23 or conviction has been invalidated on appeal, by habeas petition, or through a similar proceeding. 24 See Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994). Under Heck, a party who was convicted of 25 a crime is barred from bringing a suit under § 1983 if a judgment in favor of that party would 26 necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction or sentence. See Whitaker v. Garcetti,

(9th Cir. 2007) (citing Heck,

). 1 Here, based on Plaintiff’s short complaint, the Court cannot tell if Plaintiff’s claims are 2 barred by Heck. First, the Court cannot tell if the basis for some or all of Plaintiff’s claims is (1) 3 the first prosecution that was terminated or (2) the second prosecution that was brought. Second, 4 the Court does not know if Plaintiff was convicted of the charges brought in the second 5 prosecution. Though Plaintiff alleges that the state rendered a “faulty verdict of the facts,” the 6 Court does not know if this means that he was actually convicted (or if Plaintiff is simply trying 7 to communicate that the state came to the wrong conclusion about the facts). Because Plaintiff’s 8 complaint does not flesh out these critical points, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with 9 leave to amend. 10 If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he must state: (1) whether his claims are based on the first 11 prosecution that was terminated or (2) the second prosecution that was brought. If his claims are 12 based on the second prosecution, he must state (1) whether he was convicted and (2) whether his 13 conviction or sentence has been invalidated or reversed. 14 To help Plaintiff file a properly formatted amended complaint, the Court advises Plaintiff 15 of the following requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 16 First, Plaintiff is advised that he must specify which claims he is alleging against which 17 defendants. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, 18 Plaintiff still must give defendants fair notice of each of the claims he is alleging against each 19 defendant. Specifically, he must allege facts showing how each named defendant is involved and 20 the approximate dates of their involvement. Put another way, Plaintiff should tell the Court, in 21 plain language, what each defendant did to him and when. “While legal conclusions can provide 22 the framework of a complaint, they must be supported with factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 23

(2009). 24 Second, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be short and plain. The simpler and more 25 concise Plaintiff’s complaint, the easier it is for the Court to understand and screen it. The Federal 26 Rules also require this. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, Plaintiff’s amended complaint 27 must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to

(d)(1). “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far 2 as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). “[E]ach claim founded on a 3 separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.”

4 Third, Plaintiff may not raise multiple unrelated claims in a single lawsuit. The Federal 5 Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a litigant to raise unrelated claims involving different 6 defendants in a single action. A basic lawsuit is a single claim against a single defendant. Federal 7 Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple claims to the lawsuit when those 8 claims are against the same defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) allows a plaintiff to 9 add multiple parties to a lawsuit where the right to relief arises out of the “same transaction, 10 occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A). “However, 11 unrelated claims that involve different defendants must be brought in separate lawsuits.” Bryant v. 12 Romero, No. 1:12-CV-02074-DLB PC,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2013) (citing 13 George v. Smith,

(7th Cir. 2007)). This rule is intended to avoid confusion, 14 which arises out of bloated lawsuits. 15 Lastly, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete in and of itself. If Plaintiff 16 chooses to file an amended complaint, he is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the 17 original complaint and, thus, the amended complaint must be complete by itself. See Hal Roach 18 Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1989) (holding that 19 “[t]he fact that a party was named in the original complaint is irrelevant; an amended pleading 20 supersedes the original”); see also Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty.,

(9th Cir. 2012) 21 (holding that for claims dismissed with prejudice, a plaintiff is not required to reallege such 22 claims in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal). Plaintiff’s amended 23 complaint must contain all claims, defendants, and factual allegations that Plaintiff wishes to 24 pursue in this lawsuit. 25 II. Conclusion 26 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 27 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff will not be required to pay the filing fee in this 1 prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security for fees or costs. This order 2 granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis does not extend to the issuance of subpoenas at 3 government expense. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must detach and file Plaintiff’s 5 complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed with 7 leave to amend. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he 9 must do so by September 29, 2022. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this 10 order will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. 11 12 DATED: August 24, 2022

13 BRENDA WEKSLER 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27