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)

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-