Huff v. United States of America

Filing 44

ORDER Adopting the entirety of the 25 Report and Recommendation and Dismissing this action with prejudice. Plaintiff's 23 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is Denied as Moot. Plaintiff's 34 Motion to add Lois Hoff and her estate as defendants and 35 Motion to Include Medicaid as a Plaintiff and USA, et al., as Defendants are Denied. Plaintiff's 37 Motion for Reconsideration/Settlement is Denied. Plaintiff's 36 Motion to Remove Judge and Bring in New Judge Before Trial is Denied. Plaintiff's 18 Motion for Arbitration Hearing, 19 and 20 Motions for Clerk to Enter Default, 21 Motion for Damages for Unlawful Imprisonment, 27 Motion for the Return of Overpaid Taxes and Unlawful Concealment of Fraud by USA and IRS, 29 Motion to Enter Default Judgment and Answer the Amended Complaint with Default Judgment, 31 Motion with Notice to US Supreme Court for Judicial Review on Default, 33 Motion for Clerk to Enter Default and Default Judgment in the Amount of $10,000,000.00, 39 Motion to Enter Default re Misrepresentation and Concealment by Court, 40 Motion to Enter Default and for Default Judgement Cause Fraud by USA and its Lawy ers and Courts, 42 Motion to Enter Declaration of Keith Hoff are Denied as Moot. This action is Dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 8/23/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
KEITH HOFF,
9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
12
Defendant.
13
14

)
)
)
Case No.: 2:12-cv-00235-JAD-PAL
)
)
ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF
) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION (#25),
)
DISMISSING ACTION, AND DENYING
) PENDING MOTIONS (##18, 19, 20, 21,23, 25, 27,
)
29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42)
)

On June 4, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen entered a Report of

15

Findings and Recommendation (Dkt. #25) recommending the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Amended

16

Complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim in compliance with Local Rule 15-1 and the court’s

17

prior order, and denying all then-pending motions (Dkt. ##11, 14, 15, 16, 17). The Report

18

specifically notified Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations must be in

19

writing, supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, filed within 14 days of the date of

20

service of the Report, and entitled, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

21

Recommendations.” (Dkt. #25 at 4.)

22

The time for filing Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation passed

23

without any such filing by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed a number of documents since the entry of

24

the Report, and the Court has reviewed and considered those filings with leniency, taking into

25

account the Plaintiff’s pro se status. None, however, appears to state an objection to the Report.

26

This Court has reviewed the Report of Findings and Recommendation in accordance with 28

1

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) and Local Rule IB 3-2, along with Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. #24),

2

which the Court has read and construed liberally,1 and the Court determines that Magistrate Judge

3

Leen’s Report of Findings and Recommendation (Dkt. #25) should be AFFIRMED for all the

4

reasons stated therein and also because the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. #24) fails to cure

5

the numerous and fundamental deficiencies previously identified.

6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the entirety of the Report of

7

Findings and Recommendation (Dkt. #25) and DISMISSES this action with prejudice under FRCP

8

12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

9
10

The Court has also considered all other pending motions and rules as follows:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt.

11

#23) is DENIED as MOOT; the Court granted leave to proceed in this capacity via Order dated

12

December 18, 2012. (See Dkt. #6.)

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to add Lois Hoff and her estate as

14

defendants (Dkt. #34) and Motion to Include Medicaid as a Plaintiff and USA, et al., as Defendants

15

(Dkt. #35) are DENIED. Although leave to amend a complaint is freely granted when justice

16

requires, FED. R. CIV. PROC. 15(a)(2), leave is not required when the requested amendment would be

17

fruitless or futile. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Flowers v. First Hawaiian Bank, 295

18

F.3d 966, 976 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A district court, however, does not abuse its discretion in denying

19

leave to amend where amendment would be futile.”). Plaintiff has not demonstrated any cognizable

20

legal or factual basis to add these parties to this action, and thus, amendment would be futile.

21

Plaintiff has also failed to comply with Local Rule 15-1(a), which requires a party seeking leave to

22

amend to “attach the proposed amended pleading to any motion to amend, so that it will be complete

23

in itself without reference to the superseding pleading.” L.R. 15-1(a). “Although we construe

24

pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali v.

25
1

26

Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).

2

1

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule 15-1(a) is an

2

independent reason that the request to amend should be denied here.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration/Settlement (Dkt.

4

#37) is also DENIED. A motion for reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used

5

sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises v.

6

Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law

7

of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Arteaga v. Asset

8

Acceptance, LLC, 733 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1236 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Fundamentally, to obtain

9

reconsideration of an order of the court, the movant must identify an order of the court that the

10

movant desires to have reconsidered. Plaintiff has not identified any order or other action of this

11

Court that he seeks to have reconsidered, a prerequisite to reconsideration, and has therefore failed

12

to satisfy his burden on reconsideration.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remove Judge and Bring in New

14

Judge Before Trial (Dkt. #36) is DENIED. The motion does not appear to ask for a new judge to

15

preside over the instant case, as it refers to judicial misconduct that has “occurred for over 20 years,”

16

(Dkt. #36 at 2) and this case was filed in 2012. To the extent that it could be very liberally

17

construed as requesting a new judge in this matter, it is now MOOT: on August 7, 2013, this case

18

was reassigned to a new judge. (Dkt. #38.)

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Arbitration Hearing (Dkt. #18),

20

Motions for Clerk to Enter Default (Dkt. ##19, 20), Motion for Damages for Unlawful

21

Imprisonment (Dkt. #21), Motion for the Return of Overpaid Taxes and Unlawful Concealment of

22

Fraud by USA and IRS (Dkt. #27), Motion to Enter Default Judgment and Answer the Amended

23

Complaint with Default Judgment (Dkt. #29), Motion with Notice to US Supreme Court for Judicial

24

Review on Default (Dkt. #31), Motion for Clerk to Enter Default and Default Judgment in the

25

Amount of $10,000,000.00 (Dkt. #33), Motion to Enter Default re Misrepresentation and

26

Concealment by Court (Dkt. #39), Motion to Enter Default and for Default Judgement Cause Fraud

3

1

by USA and its Lawyers and Courts (Dkt. #40), and Motion to Enter Declaration of Keith Hoff (Dkt.

2

#42) are DENIED as moot as this matter is being dismissed and because Plaintiff has failed to

3

sustain his burden of demonstrating in these (primarily incomprehensible) filings any legal or factual

4

basis for the relief requested by these motions.

5
6
7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
Dated August 23, 2013.

8
9

JENNIFER A. DORSEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

4