Albanese v. Las Vegas Police Department

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Recommending to dismiss 1 Complaint. Objections to R&R due by 8/31/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/17/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
GRACE ALBANESE,

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16

On July 21, 2017, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s application to proceed in

17

forma pauperis, noting on-going proceedings in other cases that could result in Plaintiff being

18

declared a vexatious litigant. Docket No. 3. United States District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey has

19

since declared Plaintiff vexatious. See, e.g., Albanese v. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Case

20

No. 2:17-cv-01599-JAD-VCF, Docket No. 7 (July 27, 2017). In this instance, the Court will not

21

apply retroactively the pre-filing certification requirement established by Judge Dorsey therein. See

22

id. at 5 (establishing proceedings with which Plaintiff must comply before “filing any new complaint,

23

petition, or other action in this court” (emphasis added)). Instead, the undersigned has reviewed

24

Plaintiff’s complaint in this case and finds Plaintiff’s claims of stalking and police

25

involvement/indifference1 are sufficiently frivolous to warrant dismissal on the merits. See Neitzke

26

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).

11
Plaintiff(s),
12
v.
13
LAS VEGAS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
14
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:17-cv-01972-JAD-NJK
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

27
28

1

The claims in this case are substantially similar to those found to be frivolous in other cases.

1

Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED.

2

DATED: August 17, 2017

3
4
5

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE

6

Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be

7

in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court has

8

held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file

9

objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also

10

held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and

11

brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal

12

factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.

13

1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-