1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 CAESAR ANGELO CATAPANO, Case No. 2:24-cv-00410-RFB-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 KEVIN KEATING, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pro se plaintiff filed documents initiating this case on February 26, 2024. 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 in 13 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 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 It is unclear what claims Plaintiff is attempting to assert or against whom. See ECF No. 1. 12 Plaintiff has filed 11 attachments, each of which is supposed to contain a part of his claim. Based 13 on the way Plaintiff presents his factual allegations, the Court cannot evaluate whether Plaintiff 14 states any claims for relief. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to 15 amend to file a more manageable complaint. See Dietz v. Bouldin,

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

(d)(1). “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far 7 as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” FED. R. CIV. P. 10(b). “[E]ach claim founded on a 8 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, he 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 // 26 // 27 // 1 || supersedes the original”). Plaintiff's amended complaint must contain all claims, defendants, and 2 || factual allegations that Plaintiff wishes to pursue in this lawsuit. 3 || IL. CONCLUSION 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis 5 || CECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1-1 through 1-11) is 7 || denied with leave to amend. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, he must 9 || do so by April 6, 2024. If Plaintiff chooses not to amend his complaint, this Court will 10 |} recommend that his case be dismissed. 11 12 DATED: March 6, 2024 13 LZ Cra Las Are ext □ ENDA WEKSLER □ 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28