UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Courtney Caradine, 5 Case No. 2:23-cv-01092-APG-MDC

6 Plaintiff, ORDER vs. 7 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS The Suites at Flamingo, et al., (EFC NO. 4) AND COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1-1) 8 Defendants. 9

10 The Court previously ordered Courtney Caradine, who is incarcerated, to pay an initial partial 11 filing fee in the amount of $14.10 (toward the full $350 filing fee). ECF No. 3. The Clerk’s office has 12 confirmed that the High Desert State Prison has forwarded the initial partial filing fee to the Court from 13 plaintiff’s account. The Court also ordered, however, that pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must 14 immediately file written notification with the court of any change of address. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff has not 15 done so, as recent mail to plaintiff has been returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 5. The Court cautions the 16 plaintiff that she must comply with the local rules this Court’s orders. The Court also notes that plaintiff 17 has filed at least one other case in this Court that has been dismissed. 18 Out of an abundance of caution, however, the Court will now screen plaintiff’s complaint since 19 20 she has paid the initial partial filing fee. The Court dismisses the plaintiff’s case without prejudice, with 21 leave to refile. The Court warns plaintiff that if she does not file an amended complaint that complies with 22 this screening order, the Court will issue a report and recommendation to dismiss this case. 23 I. Whether Plaintiff’s Complaint States a Plausible Claim 24 a. Legal Standard 25 Since the Court grants plaintiff’s IFP application, the Court reviews plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a plausible claim.

1915(e)(2)(B). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) provides that a complaint must contain “a short 2 and plain statement of the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Rule 8 ensures that each 3 4 defendant has "fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Dura 5 Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo,

,

,

(2005). The Supreme 6 Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal states that to satisfy Rule 8’s requirements, a complaint’s allegations 7 must cross “the line from conceivable to plausible.”

(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. 8 v. Twombly,

, (2007)). Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides 9 for dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A complaint 10 should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), “if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set 11 of facts in support of her claims that would entitle him to relief.” Buckey v. Los Angeles,

, 12 794 (9th Cir. 1992). 13 “[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than 14 formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (quoting Estelle v. 15 Gamble,

(1976)). If the Court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should 16 17 be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from 18 the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Cato v. United States, 19

(9th Cir. 1995). 20 b. Complaint 21 Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to

against two motel defendants (the Suites at 22 Flamingo and the Suites and Flamingo LLC), and the individual motel manager (“Courtney”), for 23 violating her Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the Affordable Housing Act, and the Coronavirus 24 Aid Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act. ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff’s complaint is difficult to 25 2 follow, as it is handwritten, but she appears to allege that on August 9, 2020, before her current 1 incarceration, she was illegally evicted from a motel without notice.

She alleges that the motel manager, 2 defendant “Crystal” entered her room with a key and evicted her.

She does not mention if she ever 3 4 filed an answer in state court regarding the eviction pursuant to state law. She alleges that the illegal 5 eviction caused her to lose all her belongings including her father’s ashes.

She alleges that this illegal 6 eviction exacerbated her previously diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder.

She seeks one million 7 dollars in damages from these named defendants.

8 i. Standard for Civil Rights Cases against Private Parties and the Rooker- 9 Feldman Doctrine 10 Section 1983 provides: 11 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State 12 or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United 13 States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or 14 immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, 15 suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress … . 16 17

. 18 “[Section] 1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a method for 19 vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.’” Graham v. Connor,

, 393–94 (1989) 20 (quoting Baker v. McCollan,

, 144 n.3 (1979)). 21 Private parties are not generally acting under color of state law. See Price v. Hawaii,

, 22 707–08 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Simmons v. Sacramento Cnty. Superior Court,

(9th 23 Cir. 2003) (explaining that a lawyer in private practice does not act under color of state law). “[P]rivate 24 parties may act under color of state law when the state significantly involves itself in the private parties’ 25 3 actions and decision making at issue.” Rawson v. Recovery Innovations, Inc.,

, 753 (9th Cir. 1 2020), cert. denied,

(2021). A private individual’s actions can only be considered state action 2 if a “sufficiently close nexus” makes private action “treat[able] as that of the [government entity] itself.” 3 4 Blum v. Yaretsky,

,

,

(1982) (citation omitted). Merely 5 “authoriz[ing],” “approv[ing,] or acquiesc[ing]” to private action— such as the “creation or modification 6 of any legal remedy”—is not enough to show state action. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,

40, 52–53,

,

(1999) (citations omitted). And an “[a]ction by a private party 8 pursuant to [a] statute, without something more, [is] not sufficient to justify a characterization of that party 9 as a ‘state actor.’” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.,

,

,

(1982). Ballinger v. City of Oakland,

, 1300 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Ballinger v. 11 City of Oakland, California,

(2022). Where a private party conspires with state officials 12 to deprive others of constitutional rights, however, the private party is acting under color of state law. See 13 Tower v. Glover,

(1984). 14 Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review decisions of 15 state courts or to reverse or modify state court judgments. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,

, 16 17 415-16,

,

(1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,

462, 476,

,

(1983). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes federal 19 district courts from hearing cases in which the "federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly 20 erroneous decision by a state court and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that decision." 21 Benavidez v. County of San Diego,

, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and 22 citation omitted). Review of such state court decisions may be conducted only by the United States 23 Supreme Court. See

; see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,

280, 291,

,

(2005). 25 4 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies beyond direct challenges to state court decisions. "The 1 doctrine also precludes constitutional claims that are 'inextricably intertwined' with the forbidden appeal.'" 2 Ignacio v. Judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,

, 1165 (citing Noel v. 3

F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003)). "Rooker-Feldman may also apply where the parties do not 5 directly contest the merits of a state court decision, as the doctrine 'prohibits a federal district court from 6 exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.'" 7 Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.,

(9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 8

(9th Cir. 2004)). 9 ii. Analysis 10 The only named defendants in this case are private parties, not state actors. Plaintiff specifically 11 alleges that “Courtney” the motel manager is the one who illegally evicted her. While there are some 12 limited circumstances where private actors can be liable pursuant to Section 1983, such as when private 13 actors conspire with government actors, plaintiff has not made any allegations that Courtney or the motels 14 conspired with government actors (like the police) to evict her. Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint are 15 sparse, and she does not specify how the three named private defendants violated her constitutional rights 16 17 or federal law. 18 The Court is also concerned that plaintiff’s case appears to be an appeal of an underlying eviction, 19 which violates the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. It is unclear from the plaintiff’s complaint whether she filed 20 an answer in state court regarding her eviction. Plaintiff’s remedy would have been to file an answer in 21 state court rather than wait and file a complaint in federal court. Plaintiff fails to articulate a claim or 22 claims against any defendant. It is possible that these deficiencies may be cured through amendment. 23 Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint explaining 24 how this Court has jurisdiction over the defendants, the circumstances of the case, the relief plaintiff seeks, 25 5 and the law upon which she relies in bringing the case. The amended complaint must be “complete in and 1 of itself without reference to the superseded pleading and must include copies of all exhibits referred to in 2 the proposed amended pleading. LR 15-1(a). 3 4 ACCORDINGLY, 5 IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT 6 PREJUDICE. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff has until Wednesday, February 28, 2024, to file an 8 amended complaint addressing the issues discussed above. Failure to timely file an amended complaint 9 that addresses the deficiencies noted in this Order may result in a recommendation for dismissal with 10 prejudice. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff files an amended complaint, the Clerk of the Court 12 is directed NOT to issue summons on the amended complaint. I will issue a screening order on the 13 amended complaint and address the issuance of summons at that time, if applicable. See

1915(e)(2). 15 THE COURT CAUTIONS plaintiff that continuing to file duplicative and/or frivolous lawsuits 16 17 may result in adverse consequences, including possible sanctions or a finding that she is a vexatious 18 litigant. 19 NOTICE 20 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 21 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 22 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 23 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 24 time. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). 25 6 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure

5 to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order

3 and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. YIst,

, 1157 4 || (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch, Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR 5 ||IA 3-1, plaintiffs must immediately file written notification with the court of any change of address. The 6 || notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party 7 || if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the 8 |! action. | “p, . 4 _ ° IT IS SO ORDERED. □□ Af □□ 10 fog /

DATED this 30th day of January 2024. I, Ye /y ‘\ 12 Lo Maximiliang/i. Couvifier 3 United Statey Magistrgte Judge

14 iF 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25