Butcher Jr. v. L.A. County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Raymund Eugene Butcher Jr., Case No. 2:24-cv-00534-CDS-BNW Plaintiff, 7 SCREENING ORDER AND v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION L.A. County, et al., Defendants.

Pro se plaintiff Raymund Butcher initiated this lawsuit on March 19, 2024, by filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint. ECF Nos. 1 and 1-1. Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). As a result, his application is granted.

The court now screens his complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

I. ANALYSIS A. Screening standard Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 23 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

3 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).

6 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 8 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. Unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

12 B. Screening the complaint 13 Plaintiff explains he is suing the county of Los Angeles related to its failure to respond to the issuance of certain warrants in an acceptable manner. He names the following defendants: Los Angeles County, the Public Defender’s Office, and the Prosecutor’s Office. All defendants reside in in Los Angeles.

17 It is not clear what Plaintiff’s claim is. In addition, it appears Nevada may not be the proper venue for this claim as none of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this district and none of the defendants reside here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. As a result, the Court will dismiss the complaint with leave to amend.

21 To help Plaintiff file an amended complaint, the Court advises Plaintiff of the following requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is also advised that failure to comply with these rules when drafting and filing his amended complaint will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

25 First, Plaintiff should familiarize himself with 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and determine whether he should be filing this action in the United States District Court for Central District of California, as opposed to this district.

1 Second, to the extent Plaintiff chooses to amend in this district, he is advised that he must specify which claims he is alleging against which defendants. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, Plaintiff still must give defendants fair notice of each of the claims he is alleging against each defendant. Specifically, he must allege facts showing how each named defendant is involved and the approximate dates of their involvement. Put another way, Plaintiff should tell the Court, in plain language, what each defendant did to him and when. “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported with factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

9 Third, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be short and plain. The simpler and more concise Plaintiff’s complaint, the easier it is for the Court to understand and screen it. The Federal Rules also require this. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). “[E]ach claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.” Id. 17 Fourth, Plaintiff may not raise multiple unrelated claims in a single lawsuit. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a litigant to raise unrelated claims involving different defendants in a single action. A basic lawsuit is a single claim against a single defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple claims to the lawsuit when those claims are against the same defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple parties to a lawsuit where the right to relief arises out of the “same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A). “However, unrelated claims that involve different defendants must be brought in separate lawsuits.” Bryant v. Romero, No. 1:12-CV-02074-DLB PC, 2013 WL 5923108, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2013) (citing George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)).

27 Lastly, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete in and of itself. If Plaintiff || original complaint and, thus, the amended complaint must be complete by itself. See Hal Roach || Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that || “[t]he fact that a party was named in the original complaint is irrelevant; an amended pleading || supersedes the original”); see also Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) || (holding that for claims dismissed with prejudice, a plaintiff is not required to reallege such || claims in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal). Plaintiff's amended || complaint must contain all claims, defendants, and factual allegations that Plaintiff wishes to || pursue in this lawsuit. Moreover, Plaintiff must file his amended complaint on this Court’s || approved form, which the Clerk of Court will send Plaintiff.

10 || IL. CONCLUSION 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in || forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED.

13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court must detach and separately file || Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1-1).

15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice || and with leave to amend. Should Plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint in this district, it || will be due no later than June 21, 2024. Failure to file an amended complaint by that deadline || may result in the recommendation that the case be dismissed.

19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall include an approved form for || Plaintiff to file his amended complaint.

21 DATED: May 20, 2024 23 KK gn le We Eat BRENDA WEKSLER 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE