Greene v. Gray
2:15-cv-02188
D. Nev.Aug 26, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Cedric Greene, a California resident, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and a complaint against his landlord, Floritta Gray, alleging state-law claims (intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence) arising in Los Angeles, California.
- Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that Greene be allowed to proceed IFP and that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Greene filed objections to the R&R. The district court reviewed the record de novo and considered those objections.
- The court applied the screening requirements for IFP complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and the Rule 12(b)(6)/Iqbal plausibility standard for dismissal.
- The court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Greene’s claims were state-law claims and there was no federal question or diversity of citizenship between the parties.
- The court adopted the R&R in full, granted the IFP application, dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and closed the case with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (federal-question or diversity) | Greene alleged tort claims against landlord in CA; implicit argument that case should proceed in federal court | No federal-question alleged; no diversity because both parties are residents of California | Court held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint without prejudice |
| IFP application and statutory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) | Greene sought leave to proceed IFP based on indigency | No opposing argument to IFP in the record | Court granted IFP and performed statutory screening of the complaint |
| Sufficiency of complaint under Rule 12(b)(6)/Iqbal standard during § 1915 screening | Greene’s pro se complaint asserted facts of landlord’s conduct causing emotional distress and negligence | No successful showing that a federal claim or diversity exists; complaint did not plead a federal claim | Complaint dismissed (lack of jurisdiction); screening standard applied but dismissal grounded on jurisdiction rather than merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (defines frivolous suits and provides examples of claims with clearly baseless factual contentions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (§ 1915(e)(2) dismissal standard incorporates Rule 12(b)(6) standard)
- 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)