Matthews v. USA

Filing 82

ORDER accepting and adopting in full the Report and Recommendations ECF No. 74 ; granting ECF Nos. 57 Motion to File Amended Complaint and 80 Plaintiff's Motion to File Reply in Response to Objection; denying ECF No. [ 77] Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Judicial Notice; Amended complaint dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend; denying as moot ECF Nos. 11 , 25 , 38 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 54 , 55 , 58 , 59 , 69 and 73 ; Clerk directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 02/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

FELTON L. MATTHEWS, JR.,
Plaintiff,

9
10

Case No. 3:16-cv-00077-MMD-VPC

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et. al.,

11

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VALERIE P. COOKE

Defendants.

12
13

I.

SUMMARY

14

This case involves allegations of a widespread and ongoing conspiracy to

15

interfere with Plaintiff Felton L. Matthews Jr.’s mail in order to frustrate access to the

16

courts. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

17

Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 74) (“R&R”) relating to Plaintiff’s Motion to File

18

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 57.) The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objection (ECF

19

No. 75) and Defendants’ response (ECF No. 78). Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to

20

file an attached motion to correct the record (ECF No. 80) to respond to Defendants’

21

objection. The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 80) as a request to file a reply

22

in support of his objection and will grant his motion.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R

23
24

in full.

25

II.

BACKGROUND

26

Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections

27

(“NDOC”) and is currently housed at the Ely State Prison (“ESP”). The events giving rise

28

to this action occurred while Plaintiff was held at various correctional facilities. Plaintiff

1

filed his complaint in the Eleventh Judicial District Court for Pershing County, Nevada,

2

asserting claims against various federal, state and local actors. (ECF No. 2-1.) The Court

3

screened the complaint pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed all of the claims

4

against state defendants but granted Matthews leave to file an amended complaint.

5

(ECF No. 32.) The Court dismissed claims against the Federal defendants with prejudice

6

on September 26, 2016. (ECF No. 60.)

7

Matthews filed a Motion for Leave to Supplement Original Complaint on August

8

19, 2016, but did not include a copy of any proposed amended complaint. (ECF No. 48.)

9

On September 21, 2016, he filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and

10

attached a proposed complaint (“Amended Complaint”). (ECF Nos. 57, 57-1.)

11

The Magistrate Judge screened the Amended Complaint and concluded that

12

Matthews failed to correct the problems with his original complaint. The Magistrate

13

Judge recommended that the Court grant Matthews’ Motion for Leave to File an

14

Amended Complaint and then dismiss the Amended Complaint without prejudice and

15

without leave to amend. (ECF No. 74 at 5.)

16

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

17

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

18

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party

19

timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is

20

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

21

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In light of Plaintiffs’

22

objections, the Court has engaged in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt

23

Magistrate Judge Cooke’s recommendation. Where a party fails to object, however, the

24

court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject

25

of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has

26

recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and

27

recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. Reyna-

28

Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by
2

1

the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections

2

were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)

3

(reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district

4

courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”).

5

Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court

6

may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d

7

at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no

8

objection was filed).

9

IV.

DISCUSSION

10

As part of the initial screening order, the Magistrate Judge determined that

11

Matthews’ claims against the state and local defendants were barred by the doctrines of

12

judicial immunity, quasi-judicial immunity, and prosecutorial immunity. (ECF No. 32 at 3-

13

5.) The Magistrate Judge further concluded that Matthews lacked standing to bring a

14

claim based on Nevada’s RICO Act, and that even if he did have standing he did not

15

plead the claim with the requisite specificity. (Id. at 5-6.) Lastly, the Magistrate Judge

16

determined that Matthews’ claim based on the due process clause of the Nevada

17

Constitution relied on vague and conclusory statements, and was therefore also

18

deficient. (Id. at 7-8.) After reviewing Matthews’ proposed Amended Complaint, the

19

Magistrate Judge concluded that it failed to correct any of the problems listed above.

20

(ECF No. 74 at 3.)

21

As an initial matter, the primary problem with the Amended Complaint is that it,

22

like the original complaint, takes a shotgun approach to pleading. It contains at least 30

23

named and unnamed defendants, references to past and ongoing criminal and civil

24

proceedings, legal argument, rhetorical questions, and a cautionary note. As Matthews

25

(who acknowledges in the Amended Complaint that he has had several actions

26

dismissed for being frivolous or failing to state a claim) is likely aware, a properly

27

pleaded complaint must provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

28

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
3

1

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In her screening order, the Magistrate Judge cautioned

2

Matthews that his complaint was “difficult to parse.” (ECF No. 32 at 2.) The Amended

3

Complaint is no clearer.

4

Matthews argues that in reviewing his Amended Complaint the Magistrate Judge

5

incorrectly applied the applicable law. First, Matthews argues that under Pullman v.

6

Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984), his claims against “unknown judges” should proceed

7

because judges are not immune from declaratory and injunctive relief. (ECF No. 75 at 1-

8

2.) Matthews is correct about this point of law, but his Amended Complaint remains

9

deficient with respect to the judicial defendants. His claims against judges are based on

10

the lengths of time various courts have taken to rule on his filings, the ultimate decisions

11

of those courts, and the judges’ alleged knowledge of the “NDOC civil rights conspiracy.”

12

(ECF No. 57-1 at 6, 8-11.) It is unclear which decisions and delays Matthews believes

13

correspond to each of his legal theories. In any event, the Magistrate Judge is correct

14

that his allegations, to the extent that they are not conclusory or barred by immunity

15

doctrines, still fail adequately to allege a conspiracy or any other plausible claim.

16

Matthews next argues that his claims related to defendants who have handled his

17

legal mail are properly plead and that he can provide more specific information about

18

these defendants if granted leave to amend. (ECF No. 75 at 3.) He further argues that

19

the allegations against various clerks are supported and explained by filings he has

20

made in state court, and references various documents as being “in the record” without

21

citing to them or otherwise describing them. (Id. at 2-4.) The Court agrees with the

22

Magistrate Judge’s characterization of these claims as confusing, conclusory, and

23

speculative. (ECF No. 75 at 3.) Furthermore, Matthews does not explain what new

24

information he can provide if granted leave to amend, nor why he has only decided to

25

provide new information a year after filing his original complaint, and only after the

26

Magistrate Judge deemed his Amended Complaint deficient.

27

///

28

///
4

1

Lastly, the Court also agrees the additional unrelated claims involving new

2

defendants and causes of action were improperly added to the Amended Complaint and

3

should be disregarded.

4

V.

CONCLUSION
It

5

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

6

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 75) be accepted and

7

adopted in full.

8

It is ordered that plaintiff’s motion to file amended complaint (ECF No. 57) is

9

granted. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file judicial notice (ECF No. 77) is denied. Plaintiff

10

appears to offer additional information to supplement his proposed amended complaint,

11

but he cannot seek to supplement his amended complaint nor does the information

12

address the deficiencies that the Court has identified.
It is further ordered that the amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice

13
14

and without leave to amend.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to file reply in response to objection

15
16

(ECF No. 80) is granted.
It is further ordered that all pending motions (ECF Nos. 11, 25, 38, 46, 48, 49, 54,

17
18

55, 58, 59, 69, 73) are denied as moot.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this

19
20
21

case.
DATED THIS 13th day of February 2017.

22
23

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
5