Morris v. Nevada Gaming Control Board et al
Filing
3
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: IT IS RECOMMENDED that ECF No. 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be GRANTED; the Clerk FILE Plaintiff's Complaint ECF No. 1 -1; the Complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Objections to R&R due by 7/19/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 07/05/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
4
3:16-cv-00604-MMD-VPC
BRENT MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
5
6
7
8
v.
NEVADA GAMING CONTROL BOARD,
et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M. Du, United
States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and LR IB 1-4. Before the court is Brent Morris’s (“plaintiff”) application
to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1-1). Having reviewed
the record, the court recommends that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be
granted, and that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
I.
IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
As set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the court may authorize a plaintiff to proceed in
forma pauperis if he or she is unable to pay the prescribed court fees. The plaintiff need not “be
absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefits of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours &
Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). Based on the financial information provided in his application to
proceed in forma pauperis, the court finds that plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee in this
matter. (See ECF No. 1.) Accordingly, the court recommends that plaintiff’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis be granted.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Applications to proceed in forma pauperis are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section
1915 provides, in relevant part, that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that . . . the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon
1
which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
2
from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a
3
claim upon which relief may be granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4
12(b)(6), and the court applies the same standard under section 1915 when reviewing the
5
adequacy of a complaint or amended complaint. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th
6
Cir. 2000).
7
Under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must dismiss the complaint if it fails to “state a claim for
8
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Courts
9
accept as true all well-pled factual allegations, set aside legal conclusions, and verify that the
10
factual allegations state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
11
Although the complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it must offer more than “a
12
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” and “raise a right to relief above a
13
speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
14
The complaint is construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Chubb Custom Ins.
15
Co. v. Space Systems/Loral Inc., 710 F.3d 946, 956 (9th Cir. 2013). The court takes particular
16
care when reviewing the pleadings of a pro se party, for a more forgiving standard applies to
17
litigants not represented by counsel. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Still, a
18
liberal construction may not be used to supply an essential element of the claim not initially pled.
19
Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992). If dismissal is appropriate, the pro se
20
plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless
21
it is clear that those deficiencies cannot be cured. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th
22
Cir. 1995).
23
III.
DISCUSSION
24
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges various civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
25
alleged constitutional violations stemming from plaintiff’s arrest, trial, and conviction in Nevada
26
state court. (ECF No. 1-1.) Plaintiff sues defendants Rachel Martines (“Martines”), Boyd
27
Gaming Corporation, the Orleans Hotel and Casino (“Orleans”), Elizabeth Sobczak (“Sobczak”),
28
Jeffery Fine (“Fine”), and Mitchell Caberto (“Caberto”). (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff alleges that on
2
1
September 22, 2010, he was unlawfully arrested by Nevada Gaming Control Board agent
2
Martines. (Id. at 5.) Upon his arrest, plaintiff alleges he was searched and had $768.00 in
3
Caesars gaming chips and $5,000.00 in Orleans gaming chips seized. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that
4
the seizure of the chips was illegal and there was a lack of probable cause for his arrest. (Id. at 4-
5
7.) Further, plaintiff asserts that he was subjected to a malicious prosecution on charges of
6
cheating at the Orleans, which he alleges were subsequently dismissed. (Id. at 8.)
7
This is not plaintiff’s first attempt to litigate the facts of this case. Aside from state court
8
actions, plaintiff has filed two nearly identical cases in this district. See Morris v. Orleans Hotel
9
and Casino, 2:12-cv-01683-JCM-CWH (dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim)
10
and Morris v. Caberto, Case No. 2:16-cv-02416-GMN-NJK (barred by claim preclusion and
11
dismissed with prejudice). The court notes that duplicative litigation by a plaintiff proceeding in
12
forma pauperis may be dismissed as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Cato, 70 F.3d at
13
1105 n.2 (citing Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that repetitious
14
litigation of virtually identical causes of action is subject to dismissal as malicious)); Pittman v.
15
Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that it is malicious for a “pauper” to file a
16
lawsuit that duplicates allegations of another pending federal lawsuit by the same plaintiff). As
17
such, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed as malicious with prejudice.
18
IV.
CONCLUSION
19
Consistent with the foregoing, the court concludes that dismissal is warranted under 28
20
U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Because amendment would be futile, the dismissal should be with
21
prejudice. See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1106.
22
1.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Rule IB 3-2 of the Local Rules of
23
Practice, the parties may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation
24
within fourteen days of receipt. These objections should be entitled “Objections to Magistrate
25
Judge’s Report and Recommendation” and should be accompanied by points and authorities for
26
consideration by the District Court.
27
28
3
1
2.
This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order and any notice of
2
appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s
3
judgment.
V.
4
5
6
7
8
9
RECOMMENDATION
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) be GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk FILE plaintiff’s complaint (ECF
No. 1-1);
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be
10
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
11
DATED: July 5, 2017.
12
13
______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?