1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 SHIRLEY DRUMMER, 4 Case No. 2:25-cv-00965-GMN-NJK Plaintiff, 5 Order v. 6 [Docket No. 21] SOUTHERN NEVADA REGIONAL 7 HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 On July 11, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint and dismissed 10 it with leave to amend. Docket No. 16. On August 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed a fifth amended 11 complaint.1 Docket No. 21. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint pursuant 12 to

(e)(2). 13 I. BACKGROUND 14 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 15 to proceed in forma pauperis. On June 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint and application to 16 proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. On July 8, 2025, the Court entered an order granting 17 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and affording Plaintiff an opportunity to file a 18 fourth amended complaint. Docket No. 10. Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint, which the 19 Court dismissed with leave to amend if the deficiencies in the complaint could be corrected. See 20 Docket Nos. 11, 16. The Court explained that “Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint fails to 21 identify how the factual allegations made state a claim for any particular cause of action, and 22 therefore fails to satisfy Rule 8.” Docket No. 16 at 6. On Augst 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed a fifth 23 amended complaint. Docket No. 21. 24 II. STANDARDS 25 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 26 complaint pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the 27 1 The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants. Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007). 1 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 2 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

(e)(2). 3 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 4 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 5 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70

, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 7 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint 8 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is 9 essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am.,

, 723 10 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim 11 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 12 Twombly,

(2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, 13 it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 14 of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain,

, 15 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the 16 complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal,

. 17 Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do 18 not suffice.

. Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from 19 conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly,

. 20 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 21 by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler,

, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 22 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 23 Although the pleadings of pro se litigants are construed liberally, they must still comply 24 with Rule 8. See, e.g., Montgomery v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dept.,

, at *3 25 n.3 (D. Nev. July 28, 2014). To comply with Rule 8, a complaint must set forth coherently who is 26 being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery. McHenry 27 v. Renne,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 1995). When litigants have not complied with the dictates 28 of Rule 8(a), courts may dismiss the complaint sua sponte. See, e.g., Apothio, LLC v. Kern Cnty., 1

, 1000 (E.D. Cal. 2022) (collecting cases). That holds true even if a viable 2 claim might be discerned within the morass of the allegations. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179 3 (affirming dismissal on Rule 8 grounds despite lower court identification of a few claims that were 4 not subject to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and explaining that “the propriety of dismissal for 5 failure to comply with Rule 8 does not depend on whether the complaint is wholly without merit”). 6 III. ANALYSIS 7 Plaintiff asserts claims against the Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority 8 (“SNRHA”), Brandy Foreman, Ebony Bell, Malandria Watson, and Rhonda Jackson. Docket No. 9 21 at 1-3. Plaintiff alleges that (1) she has primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) and is 10 under treatment for anxiety, depression, cognitive issues, and ongoing behavioral therapy; (2) these 11 conditions substantially limit one or more major life activities and qualify her as a person with 12 disabilities under the ADA, Section 504 and the FHA; (3) Plaintiff provided medical 13 documentation from her licensed physician and therapist to SNHRA for her need for a live-in aid 14 and an extra bedroom for medical supplies; (4) SNRHA is legally responsible for the actions of its 15 employees and agents under respondeat superior, including Defendants Foreman, Bell, Watson, 16 and Jackson; (5) Defendants Foreman, Bell, Watson, and Jackson engaged in actions that denied 17 reasonable accommodations, violated due process, discriminated based on disability, and retaliated 18 against Plaintiff for asserting her rights; and (6) despite Plaintiff’s repeated HUD complaints and 19 submission of medical documentation, Defendants continued discriminatory, retaliatory, and 20 unlawful actions. See id. at 2-4. The fifth amended complaint also provides additional factual 21 allegations as to each Defendant. See id. at 2-3. Plaintiff attempts to assert federal claims arising 22 under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), the Americans with Disabilities 23 Act (“ADA”), and the Rehabilitation Act. See id. at 1, 4. Plaintiff asks the Court to: (1) order 24 Defendants to restore her housing choice voucher; (2) award compensatory and punitive damages; 25 (4) grant injunctive relief; (5) award attorney’s fees, costs, and interest; (6) and grant any other 26 relief the Court deems just and proper. See id. at 4-5. 27 The overriding problem with Plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint is that it fails to satisfy 28 the requirements of Rule 8. Under “CLAIMS FOR RELIEF,” the complaint lumps defendants 1} together and fails to specify the particular defendants responsible for violating the law or right asserted. See id. at 4. “Rule 8 requires sufficient allegations be pled against each defendant.” Cai 3| v. Enter. Leasing Co.-W. LLC, No. 2:23-CV-00050-NJK,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 4] 27, 2024). Although the complaint identifies “Laws Violated” as to each of the four individual 5| defendants, see Docket No. 21 at 2-3, this too fails to comply with Rule 8 because there is no 6|| accompanying “short and plain statement of the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. 7| v. Twombly,

(2007). Asking the Court to comb through allegations in an effort 8|| to piece together a claim does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8. See Lopez v. laela- Tokugawa, No. 2:24-CV-00876-APG-NJK,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 6, 2025), 10|| report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:24-CV-00876-APG-NJK,

(D. Nev. 11] Nov. 10, 2025). CONCLUSION 13 Accordingly, Plaintiff's fifth amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 14] Docket No. 21. The Court will grant Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend her complaint. Plaintiff will have until January 12, 2026, to file a sixth amended complaint, if the noted 16] deficiencies can be corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed 17] that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make the sixth amended complaint 18] complete. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without 19] reference to any prior pleading. Failure to comply with this order will result in the recommended 20] dismissal of this case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: December 15, 2025 he Nancy J. Kopjpe * 24 United States Magistrate Judge

26 27 28