Harris v. United States

Filing 3

ORDER. ORDER Denying without prejudice 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1 -1) be DISMISSED with prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 3/20/2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 3/6/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

TYLER HARRIS,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7

Case No. 2:25-cv-00380-GMN-EJY
ORDER
AND
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

v.
UNITED STATES,

8

Defendant.

9
10

I.

Introduction

11

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and

12

Civil Rights Complaint. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. Plaintiff’s IFP Application is complete; however,

13

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges claims against the United States only. ECF No. 1-1. Moreover, the

14

substance of Plaintiff’s Complaint is indecipherable. Id. Thus, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s IFP

15

application without prejudice, and recommends his Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

16

II.

Discussion

17

The Court exercises its inherent authority to sua sponte screen cases that are “transparently

18

defective” in order to “save everyone time and legal expense.” Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761,

19

763 (7th Cir. 2003). A complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

20

may be granted “if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of

21

his claims that would entitle him to relief.” Buckey v. Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir.

22

1992). A complaint may also be dismissed as frivolous if it is premised on a nonexistent legal

23

interest or delusional factual scenario. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). “[A]

24

finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational

25

or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict

26

them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

27

Here, Plaintiff states two causes of action naming only the United States as a defendant after

28

which he seeks $20 trillion in damages. ECF No. 1-1 at 4-6. Well settled law establishes the United
1

1

States is immune from suit seeking money damages. See, e.g., United States v. Testan, 424 U.S.

2

392, 399 (1976). If this is not a sufficient basis to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, the allegations

3

made are indecipherable. Id. at 4-5.

4

III.

Order
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma

5
6

pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED without prejudice.

7

IV.

8
9
10

Recommendation
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be

DISMISSED with prejudice.
Dated this 6th day of March, 2025.

11
12
13
14

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16

NOTICE

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). The Ninth Circuit also held

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25
26
27
28
2