Karriem v. Cellco Partnership Inc.

LAMONT GARNER KARRIEM, Plaintiff, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP INC., dba Verizon Wireless, et al., Defendants.

Nos. 2:20-cv-00884-JAD-VCF, 2:20-cv00942-JAD-VCF, 2:20-cv-01915-JAD-VCF

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 15, 2021

ORDER

Cam Ferenbach United States Magistrate Judge

The Court previously granted pro se plaintiff Lamont Garner Karriem's application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissed his complaint without prejudice. The Court later consolidated three of plaintiff's cases after determining that these cases arise out of Karriem's 2018 arrest^[1]: Nos 2:20-cv-00884-JAD-VCF (“Case 1”) 2:20-cv-00942-JAD-VCF (“Case 2”), and 2:20-cv-01915-JAD-VCF (“Case 3”) are consolidated with Case 1 serving as the lead case. (ECF No. 15 at 2). Prior to consolidation, the Court screened Karriem's three complaints, Karriem filed an amended complaint in this lead case (Case 1 at ECF No. 11) and he filed amended complaints in the other, now closed, cases (Case 2 at ECF No 10) and (Case 3 at ECF No. 6). In Case 3, prior to consolidation, Judge Youchah recommended that plaintiff's amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend his complaint in 30 pages or less because his 85-page complaint violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. (Case 3 at ECF No. 3 at 1). Now that the cases are consolidated, Judge Dorsey rejected Judge Youchah's report and recommendation, referred all three amended complaints for screening, and noted that the Court may place reasonable limits in the screening order, which could include allowing Karriem to amend and include only the surviving claims in a single, page-limited complaint. (ECF No. 16 at 2).

In this Order, the Court dismisses plaintiff's amended complaints in Cases 1, 2, and 3 without prejudice with leave to amend. If plaintiff amends, he must file a single amended complaint that does not exceed 35-pages.

I. Whether Karriem's Amended Complaints State a Plausible Claim

a. Legal Standard

The Court reviews 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)(2) provides that a complaint 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)). Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) “if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief.” Buckey v. Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992).

“[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). If the Court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and are only able to hear cases authorized by the Constitution and Congress. Polo v. Innoventions Int'l, LLC, 833 F.3d 1193, 1195-96 (9th Cir. 2016). The general basis for federal jurisdiction are (1) the action arises under federal law or that (2) all plaintiffs are diverse in citizenship from all defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. “Section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.” W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig. v. Coral Energy Res., L.P., 346 F.Supp.2d 1143, 1144 (D. Nev. 2004).

b. Deficiencies common to plaintiff's amended complaints in Cases 1, 2, and 3

Karriem brings claims in his amended complaint in Case 1 for invasion of privacy, defamation, gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 against Verizon Wireless because it allegedly cooperated with law enforcement prior to his October 2018 arrest. (ECF No. 11 at 2). Karriem brings claims against Verizon pursuant to 42 USC Section 1985. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff alleges that in 2018, that Verizon shared his personal data with law enforcement without a warrant which led to his arrest. (Id. at 2).

In Case 2, plaintiff brings claims for invasion of privacy, false imprisonment, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C Section 1983, breach of contract, and conversion against Extended Stay America, Inc., ESH Hospitality, Inc., and Elix Nunez (the property manager) for cooperating with law enforcement when the police arrested plaintiff while staying at Extended Stay in Las Vegas. (Case 2 at ECF No. 10 at 3). In Case 3, plaintiff brings claims for violations of (1) 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985, (2) 18 U.S.C. Sections 241, 242, 249, 1201, 2236 and 2340, (3) the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (E.C.P.A.) of 1986 (per 18 U.S.C. § 2520) and for (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) invasion of privacy, (6) defamation, (7) assault, (8) battery, (9) false imprisonment, (10) denial of equal protection, (11) loss of parental consortium, and(12) constitutional supervisor liability against Clark County, the City of Las Vegas, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., Judge Suzan Baucum, Judge Eric Goodman, Sheriff Joseph Lombardo, Undersheriff Kevin C McMahill, Assistant Sheriff Christopher Darcy, Assistant Sheriff Christopher C Jones, Captain Kelly McMahill, Detective Justin Zinger, Detective Brian Iulo, Detective Jake Freeman, Officer Michael Evans, and Chief Michele Freeman^[2] related to his allegedly unlawful arrest. (Case 3 at ECF No. 6).

a. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a “short and plain statement of” the claims asserted. Rule 8(d)(1) requires each allegation to be “simple, concise, and direct.” Rule 8 ensures that each defendant has “fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005).

Plaintiff's complaints are generally rambling, unorganized, repetitive, and difficult to follow. In Case 1, plaintiff brings eight claims against a single defendant in a 16-page complaint; in Case 2, he brings eight claims against three defendants in a 22-page complaint; and in Case 3, plaintiff brings 19 claims against 15 defendants in an 82-page complaint. Plaintiff's claims for relief fail to tie specific facts to specific defendants in a simple, concise or direct manner that would reasonably allow each defendant to understand the link between alleged conduct and alleged deprivation of rights. Plaintiff's claims are so long that they appear to be at least partially duplicative, especially now that these three cases are consolidated, making it “excessively difficult for individual defendants to formulate proper defenses and [would] subject the [defendants] to unnecessary discovery.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir. 1996); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Complaints that are argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant” and that consist “largely of immaterial background information” are subject to dismissal under Rule 8); see also Gottschalk v. City & County of San Francisco, 964 F.Supp.2d 1147, 1156-57 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (granting defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to comply with Rule 8 and the court's orders to correct deficiencies in earlier pleadings after a pro se litigant filed a third amended complaint that was incomprehensible, failed to identify the specific basis of liability for each defendant, and failed to identify the factual basis for some of her claims).

Plaintiff's complaints contain legal conclusions and argumentative assertions. Plaintiff identifies multiple claims against multiple defendants, but he refers to “new claims” within the narrative of the complaints. For example, in Case 1, plaintiff identified six claims in the case caption, but lists new claims in the narrative, such as the alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. Plaintiff's amended complaints in Cases 1, 2, and 3, fail to meet the requirements of Rule 8 and now that the cases are consolidated, if plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, he must formulate a concise version of his complaint, limited to no more than 35-pages, that is not duplicative and identifies a factual basis for his claims. Plaintiff must also identify which claims he brings and identify which defendants he brings the claims against.

b. The Fourth Amendment, 42 U.S.C.S. Section 1983, and his related federal claims

i. Legal Standard for plaintiff's federal claims

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures: Security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by police is at core of Fourth Amendment and basic...