Albanese v. Homeland Security

Filing 8

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 6 Magistrate Judge Koppe'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 9/7/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 GRACE ALBANESE, 8 Plaintiff(s), 9 10 Case No. 2:17-CV-1663 JCM (NJK) ORDER v. HOMELAND SECURITY, 11 Defendant(s). 12 13 Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation 14 (“R&R”). (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff Grace Albanese filed an objection to the R&R on July 5, 2017. 15 (ECF No. 7). The time to file a response has passed. 16 I. Legal Standard 17 This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 18 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects 19 to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo 20 determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 21 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 22 Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at 23 all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 24 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 25 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United 26 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 27 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 28 objections were made). James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge 1 II. Discussion 2 Plaintiff’s filings are pro se, and thus this court construes them liberally. See Erickson v. 3 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro 4 se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal 5 pleadings drafted by lawyers.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 6 plaintiff’s filing does not adequately address or brief the objectionable issues, (See ECF No. 7), 7 and therefore the court need not engage in a de novo review of the R&R, see Martinez v. Ylst, 951 8 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991), the court will review the screening order de novo to ensure finality 9 in the present case. Although 10 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, the court then screens the 11 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Federal courts may dismiss an action if it (1) is legally 12 “frivolous or malicious,” (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks 13 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 14 Section 1915 conserves judicial resources by empowering courts to dismiss actions that “fall 15 somewhere between the frivolous and the farcical and so foster disrespect for our laws.” 16 Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 601 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring). 17 Where the litigant files pro se, courts use “less stringent standards” when considering the 18 complaint. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). “Such litigants often lack the 19 resources and freedom necessary to comply with the technical rules of modern litigation.” Mala 20 v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Moore v. Florida, 703 21 F.2d 516, 520 (11th Cir. 1983)). However, pro se litigants “should not be treated more favorably 22 than parties with attorneys of record.” Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986). 23 If the court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend 24 with directions to cure the complaint’s deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint 25 that amendment would be futile. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation 26 omitted). Courts are not required to entertain duplicative or redundant lawsuits and may dismiss them 27 as frivolous or malicious under § 1915(e). See id. at 1105 n.2 (noting that courts may dismiss under § 28 1915 a complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims). James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -2- 1 This case is one of 45 federal cases plaintiff has filed against the Las Vegas Metropolitan 2 Police Department and Department of Homeland Security within the last year and a half. The 3 claims raised in plaintiff’s complaint are directly related to those raised in the other actions. See, 4 e.g., Grace Albanese v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, case no. 2:16-cv-00532-RFB- 5 GWF; Grace Albanese v. Homeland Security, case no. 2:16-cv-00531-RFB-VCF; Grace Albanese 6 v. Department of Homeland Security, case no. 2:17-cv-01287-JCM-PAL; Grace Albanese v. 7 Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2:17-cv-01286-JAD-PAL. 8 Magistrate Judge Koppe granted plaintiff leave to amend after holding that plaintiff’s 9 complaint failed to state a claim. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff’s amended complaint “suffers from the 10 same deficiencies outlined previously.” (ECF No. 6 at 2). This action is duplicitous and frivolous. 11 Dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) is appropriate. 12 13 III. Conclusion For the reasons stated in Judge Koppe’s R&R and stated above, the court dismisses the 14 case with prejudice. 15 Accordingly, 16 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge 17 Koppe’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 6) be, and the same hereby is, adopted in its 18 entirety. 19 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant case be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 21 The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 22 DATED September 7, 2017. 23 24 __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?