Summary
This United States District Court for the District of Nevada order grants the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and screens his pro se complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). The court finds that the complaint fails to state a plausible claim or establish subject matter jurisdiction, as it lacks factual allegations and identifies no specific legal basis for relief. The plaintiff is granted leave to file one amended complaint by February 27, 2025, which must adequately plead jurisdiction and state a cognizable claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim for relief under the screening standard applicable to an in forma pauperis action.
- Whether the complaint adequately established a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
- Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend after dismissal of the complaint.
Holdings
- The complaint failed to state a claim because it did not identify the legal basis for the action or allege facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of the claims and plausibly support damages.
- The complaint did not adequately establish federal subject matter jurisdiction because it identified no federal, statutory, common-law, or constitutional claim and did not otherwise provide facts establishing a viable jurisdictional basis.
- The complaint was dismissed without prejudice and Plaintiff was granted one opportunity to file a complete amended complaint curing the jurisdictional and pleading deficiencies.
Key quotations
“Upon granting Plaintiff’s IFP application the Court must screen his Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).” (at 1)
“A plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.” (at 3)
“Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete in and of itself containing all facts and identifying all wrongs committed as the Court cannot refer to Plaintiff’s original Complaint when reviewing an amended complaint.” (at 4)
Factual background
Plaintiff alleged that American Express lowered his credit limit after he made a purchase at Wal-Mart. He further alleged that, after he complained, Defendant promised to raise the limit but failed to do so. The complaint did not identify a statute, code, common-law theory, or constitutional provision allegedly violated, and it did not provide a plausible factual basis for damages.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint alleging that American Express lowered his credit limit after a purchase and failed to restore it as allegedly promised. The court granted the IFP application, screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a plausible claim and failure to identify a jurisdictional or legal basis for relief, and granted one opportunity to amend.