Mullins v. Powers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Matthew Mullins, Case No. 2:24-cv-00727-APG-DJA Plaintiff, 7 Order v. Samanta Powers, et al., Defendants.

12 Pro se Plaintiff Matthew Mullins has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and a complaint (ECF No. 1-1). Because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s application is complete, it grants it. Because Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court dismisses it without prejudice.

16 I. In forma pauperis application.

17 Plaintiff filed the forms required to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has shown an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court will now screen Plaintiff’s complaint.

21 II. Legal standard for screening.

22 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the complaint under § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

26 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 2 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

3 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 6 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do not suffice. Id. at 678. Where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

16 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal).

19 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by the Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Cases “arise under” federal law either when federal law creates the cause of action or where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turns on the construction of federal law. Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 25 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002). Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists is based on the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

1 district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of different states.” Generally speaking, diversity jurisdiction exists only where there is “complete diversity” among the parties; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).

6 III. Screening Plaintiff’s complaint.

7 Plaintiff sues USAID Director Samantha Powers; District Judge Kent J. Dawson; “Attorney/Government Official” Joseph Went; and “Attorney/Government Official” Robert Kinchloe. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2-3). He asserts that he is bringing his claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Names Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff alleges that the actions underlying his complaint took place from August 21, 2023 to the present. (Id. at 5).

13 Plaintiff alleges that Judge Dawson engaged in judicial misconduct and violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. (Id. at 6). He alleges that Powers, Kinchloe, and Went violated his First Amendment rights by engaging in “intimidation, harassment, and unwarranted surveillance.” (Id.). He alleges that Powers, Kinchloe, and Went abused their powers and corrupted the judicial process. (Id.).

18 Plaintiff does not provide factual detail in his complaint beyond these conclusory allegations. Instead, he refers to an affidavit which he does not attach for a “detailed account” of his claims. (Id.). Without this additional detail, Plaintiff’s claims are too conclusory to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff does not provide sufficient factual detail describing what each Defendant did, when, and how those actions violated his rights. The Court thus dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend.

25 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted. Plaintiff shall not be required to pre-pay the filing fee.

27 Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government expense.

3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to file Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) on the docket but shall not issue summons.

5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with leave to amend.

7 Plaintiff will have until June 10, 2024, to file an amended complaint if the noted deficiencies can be corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) to make the amended complaint complete. This is because, generally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.

11 Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended complaint be complete without reference to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Failure to comply with this order may result in the recommended dismissal of this case.

17 DATED: May 9, 2024 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE