Source: http://nv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180326_0003790.DNV.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:29:41+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Cono v. Avalon Bay Communities Inc.
Cono v. Avalon Bay Communities Inc.
AVALON BAY COMMUNITIES, INC., Defendant.
Before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Leo Cono's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and complaint (ECF No. 1-1). For the reasons stated below, Cono's in forma pauperis application is granted. The Court, however, orders that Cono's complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
Cono's filings present two questions: (1) whether Cono may proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and (2) whether Cono's complaint states a plausible claim for relief. Each is discussed below.
Cono's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or security thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” According to Cono's affidavit, he has no income and significant expenses. (ECF No. 1). Cono's application to proceed in forma pauperis is, therefore, granted.
Because the Court grants Cono's application to proceed in forma pauperis, it must review Cono's complaint to determine whether the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a plausible claim.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides that a complaint “that states a claim for relief” must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” The Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal states that to satisfy Rule 8's requirements, a complaint's allegations must cross “the line from conceivable to plausible.” 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547, (2007)).
Cono's complaint is difficult to follow. It consists of four pages of sentence fragments that trail of the pages. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2-5). There are no dates associated with the allegations, making it impossible to create a coherent timeline. The complaint fails to connect the alleged facts to any law supporting a claim for relief-Cono simply lists several alleged crimes at the end of his complaint. (Id. at 5). In addition, the complaint and civil cover sheet make it unclear whether Cono and the Defendant reside in Nevada, California, or Virginia. (Id. at 1, ECF No. 1-2). Should Defendant reside in California or Virginia, it is doubtful that this Court would have personal jurisdiction over the Defendant or could be considered a proper venue. See Morrill v. Scott Fin. Corp., 873 F.3d 1136, 1141-42 (9th Cir. 2017); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
The Court cannot determine what Cono is alleging in this case. Cono fails to allege coherent facts or articulate a claim or claims against the Defendant. These deficiencies may be cured through amendment. Therefore, Cono's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Cono must file an amended complaint explaining how the Court has jurisdiction over the Defendant, the circumstances of the case, the relief Cono seeks from the Court, and the law upon which he relies in bringing the case in this Court.
Though “[n]o technical form is required for complaints” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)), “[a] party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances. …If doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence…must be stated in a separate count or defense” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)). The amended complaint must be “complete in itself, including exhibits, without reference to the superseded pleading.” LR 15-1.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1915
 § 1915
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1391