Borenstein v. Emerald Suites
2:17-cv-01341
D. Nev.May 17, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Brian Borenstein, proceeding pro se, applied to proceed in forma pauperis and submitted assorted documents about an eviction from the Emerald Suites, Social Security records, and related materials.
- The court granted IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
- Plaintiff did not file a formal, coherent complaint; the court construed his filings as a complaint but found no clear factual allegations about the eviction or legal grounds for relief.
- Plaintiff requested a stay of eviction and invoked the ADA, asserting disability and inability to prepare filings adequately.
- The magistrate judge found the pleadings insufficient to evaluate claims or jurisdiction and recommended dismissal without prejudice, with leave to amend and instructions for what an amended complaint must include.
- The magistrate judge recommended denying the stay of eviction without prejudice and directed the clerk to file the submitted materials as the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Permission to proceed IFP | Borenstein cannot prepay fees | No defendant response in record | Granted — IFP application approved under § 1915(a) |
| Sufficiency of complaint / failure to state a claim | Borenstein alleges unlawful eviction and related harms in assorted documents | No formal defense presented; court cannot infer facts | Complaint dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim; leave to amend |
| Request for injunctive relief (stay of eviction) | Requests stay under ADA; cites disability and inability to prepare filings | No defendant response in record | Denied without prejudice to renew after filing an adequate amended complaint |
| Requirements for amended complaint & jurisdiction | Borenstein has not pled basis for federal jurisdiction or facts | N/A | Plaintiff instructed to file a complete Amended Complaint stating factual allegations, defendant conduct, dates, and grounds for jurisdiction; amended complaint must stand alone |
Key Cases Cited
- Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard for § 1915(e)(2) screening incorporates Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2014) (pro se complaints are liberally construed; dismissal only if no set of facts could entitle plaintiff to relief)
- Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658 (9th Cir. 1998) (all material allegations taken as true and construed in plaintiff’s favor)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading requires more than labels and conclusions)
- Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 1995) (pro se plaintiffs should be given leave to amend unless amendment would be futile)
- K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2011) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2001) (§ 1332 requires complete diversity)