1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Tiwanda Lovelace, Case No. 2:22-cv-00766-JAD-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 U.S. Department of Justice,

8 Defendant.

9 10 Pro se plaintiff filed documents initiating this case on May 16, 2022. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff 11 submitted the affidavit required by

(a) showing an inability to prepay fees or 12 costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the Court will grant her request to proceed in forma 13 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 on which relief may be 19 granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard 21 for 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’ allegations are unclear. See ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff advances four separate causes 12 of action for violations of

(Freedom of Information Act), 5 U.S.C. § 552a 13 (Violation of Privacy Act),

(Violation of Conspiracy Against Rights), and 18

(Violation of Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law).

. However, 15 even liberally construing Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court is unable to decipher Plaintiff’s factual 16 allegations. 17 Plaintiff’s factual allegations are wide-ranging and not entirely comprehensible. See ECF 18 No. 1-1. For example, Plaintiff alleges that she is the daughter of a man who killed a police 19 officer and a bar owner.

. She also alleges that she is an online publisher who seeks to 20 promote transparency and accountability in the government.

. She alleges that she 21 requested certain information from the government to “address concerns of unwarranted violation 22 of privacy, unprovoked investigations, or any reason why I would be experiencing unexplained 23 mail tampering, delays in telephone connections, electronic and computer disturbances.”

It 24 appears that she also alleges that the government responded to her request for information and 25 that the response indicates “either an active investigation or undercover officer and/or informant, 26 which means that this FBI file would span 35+ years ago for an individual without any federal 27 arrest or cases.”.

. Plaintiff then states that she attaches documents that “reflect federal 1 effort made to prevent, control, or reduce crime or apprehend criminals. Petitioner has attached 2 documents which clearly demonstrate deprivation of privacy rights when mail tampering and 3 delays are intercepting spanning thirty years, across multiple carriers.”

. Plaintiff discusses 4 several other incidents, including but not limited to, a civil action she filed in which she alleges 5 that court clerks modified her documents. (id. at 5-6), inaccurate criminal records that the 6 government maintains of her (id. at 6), surrendering to the government in 1992 for charges 7 stemming from 1988 (id. at 7), criminal charges that should be “listed under the First Offender 8 Act” (id. at 8), and that she met with Senator Cortez-Masto’s staff about securing housing but she 9 never heard from them again (id. at 9). 10 Based on Plaintiff’s factual allegations, the Court cannot evaluate whether Plaintiff states 11 any claims for relief. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice 12 and with leave to amend to file a more manageable complaint. See Dietz v. Bouldin,

1885, 1891 (2016) (holding that the Supreme Court “has long recognized that a district court 14 possesses inherent powers that are ‘governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily 15 vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious 16 disposition of cases.’”). To help Plaintiff file a properly formatted complaint, the Court advises 17 Plaintiff of the following requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is 18 also advised that failure to comply with these rules when drafting and filing her next amended 19 complaint may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 20 First, Plaintiff is advised that she must specify which claims she is alleging against which 21 defendants. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, 22 Plaintiff still must give defendants fair notice of each of the claims she is alleging against each 23 defendant. Specifically, she must allege facts showing how each named defendant is involved and 24 the approximate dates of their involvement. Put another way, Plaintiff should tell the Court, in 25 plain language, what each defendant did to her and when. “While legal conclusions can provide 26 the framework of a complaint, they must be supported with factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 27

(2009). 1 Second, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be short and plain. The simpler and more 2 concise Plaintiff’s complaint, the easier it is for the Court to understand and screen it. The Federal 3 Rules also require this. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, Plaintiff’s amended complaint 4 must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to 5 relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. 6 Civ. P. 8(d)(1). “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited 7 as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). “[E]ach claim 8 founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.”

9 Third, Plaintiff may not raise multiple unrelated claims in a single lawsuit. The Federal 10 Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a litigant to raise unrelated claims involving different 11 defendants in a single action. A basic lawsuit is a single claim against a single defendant. Federal 12 Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple claims to the lawsuit when those 13 claims are against the same defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) allows a plaintiff to 14 add multiple parties to a lawsuit where the right to relief arises out of the “same transaction, 15 occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A). “However, 16 unrelated claims that involve different defendants must be brought in separate lawsuits.” Bryant v. 17 Romero, No. 1:12-CV-02074-DLB PC,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2013) (citing 18 George v. Smith,

(7th Cir. 2007)). This rule is intended to avoid confusion, 19 which arises out of bloated lawsuits. 20 Lastly, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete in and of itself. If Plaintiff 21 chooses to file an amended complaint, she is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the 22 original complaint and, thus, the amended complaint must be complete by itself. See Hal Roach 23 Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1989) (holding that 24 “[t]he fact that a party was named in the original complaint is irrelevant; an amended pleading 25 supersedes the original”). Plaintiff’s amended complaint must contain all claims, defendants, and 26 factual allegations that Plaintiff wishes to pursue in this lawsuit. Moreover, Plaintiff must file her 27 amended complaint on this Court’s approved form, which the Clerk of Court will send Plaintiff. 1 || OL. Motion for Correction (ECF No. 5) 2 Plaintiff filed a motion to correct another filing of hers. ECF No. 5. Specifically, she filed 3 || certain exhibits at ECF No. 4. She alleges in ECF No. 5 that the Clerks Office altered and 4 || modified her filing in several ways, including changing the intended purpose of the filing, 5 || changing the color of the documents, reformatting the images, and removing certain numbers. See 6 || Jd. at 1-2. She asks the Court to order the Clerks Office to correct the filing. /d. at 2. 7 The Court will order that the Clerks Office strike ECF No. 4. Local Rule 7-2(g) provides 8 || that “[a] party may not file supplemental . . . evidence without leave of court granted for good 9 || cause. The judge may strike supplemental filings made without leave of court.” Because Plaintiff 10 || never received leave to file the supplemental exhibits at ECF No. 4, the Court strikes ECF No. 4 11 || (which contains supplemental exhibits in support of Plaintiff's complaint). Because the Court is 12 || striking ECF No. 4, ECF No. 5 will be denied as moot. 13 |} I. CONCLUSION 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis 15 || (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed 17 || without prejudice and with leave to amend. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the 19 || non-prisoner, pro se form complaint. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses to amend her complaint, she must 21 || doso by January 12, 2023. If Plaintiff chooses not to amend her complaint, this Court will 22 || recommend that her case be dismissed. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall strike ECF No. 4. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion at ECF No. 5 is DENIED as moot. 25 26 DATED: December 16, 2022 27 Kx gr lea Use Een, BRENDA WEKSLER 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE