Albanese v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Filing 10

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 3 Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's report and recommendation be, and the same hereby is, adopted in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant case be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/6/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

GRACE ALBANESE,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10
11

Case No. 2:17-CV-1285 JCM (VCF)
ORDER

v.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s report and recommendation

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

(“R&R”). (ECF No. 3).
I.

Legal Standard
This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects
to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at
all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review
employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no
objections were made).

1
2

II.

Discussion
Plaintiff has not formally objected to the R&R. However, plaintiff’s filings are pro se, and
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A

3

thus this court construes them liberally.

4

document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully

5

pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”)

6

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, the court construes plaintiff’s notice of

7

appeal (ECF No. 4) as an objection. See id. Although plaintiff does not adequately address or

8

brief the objectionable issues in plaintiff’s notice of appeal, and therefore the court need not engage

9

in a de novo review of the R&R, see Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991), the

10

court will review the screening order de novo to ensure finality in the present case.

11

Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, the court then screens the

12

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Federal courts may dismiss an action if it (1) is legally

13

“frivolous or malicious,” (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks

14

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

15

Section 1915 conserves judicial resources by empowering courts to dismiss actions that “fall

16

somewhere between the frivolous and the farcical and so foster disrespect for our laws.”

17

Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 601 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

18

Where the litigant files pro se, courts use “less stringent standards” when considering the

19

complaint. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). “Such litigants often lack the

20

resources and freedom necessary to comply with the technical rules of modern litigation.” Mala

21

v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Moore v. Florida, 703

22

F.2d 516, 520 (11th Cir. 1983)). However, pro se litigants “should not be treated more favorably

23

than parties with attorneys of record.” Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986).

24

If the court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend

25

with directions to cure the complaint’s deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint

26

that amendment would be futile. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation

27

omitted). Courts are not required to entertain duplicative or redundant lawsuits and may dismiss them

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

as frivolous or malicious under § 1915(e). See id. at 1105 n.2 (noting that courts may dismiss under §

2

1915 a complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims).

3

This case is one of 30 federal cases plaintiff has filed against the Las Vegas Metropolitan

4

Police Department (“LVMPD”) within the last year and a half. The claims raised in plaintiff’s

5

complaint against the LVMPD are directly related, if not identical, to plaintiff’s claims in the other

6

actions. See, e.g., Grace Albanese v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, case no. 2:16-

7

cv-00532-RFB-GWF; Grace Albanese v. Homeland Security, case no. 2:16-cv-00531-RFB-VCF;

8

Grace Albanese v. Department of Homeland Security, case no. 2:17-cv-01287-JCM-PAL; Grace

9

Albanese v. Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2:17-cv-01286-JAD-PAL. This action is duplicitous

10
11
12

and frivolous. Dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) is therefore appropriate.

III.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated in Judge Ferenbach’s R&R and stated above, the court dismisses the

13

case with prejudice.

14

Accordingly,

15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge

16

Ferenbach’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 3) be, and the same hereby is, adopted in its

17

entirety.

18
19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant case be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.

20

The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

21

DATED September 6, 2017.

22
23

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-