Tagle v. State of Nevada et al
Filing
3
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the District Judge enter an order DENYING Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP (ECF No. 1 ); and directing Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee within thirty days. Objections to R&R due by 9/14/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 8/31/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
10
11
12
VICTOR TAGLE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________)
3:17-cv-00510-MMD-WGC
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M. Du, United States
15
District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
16
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and the Local Rules of Practice, LR 1B 1-4.
17
Before the court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). (ECF No. 1.)
18
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se. He has submitted an IFP application, and a complaint
19
which he labels a “tort action,” and requests a jury pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985, against the State of
20
Nevada and Deputy Attorney Generals for, inter alia, conspiracy and corruption. (ECF No. 1-1.)
21
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), “if [a] prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
22
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that
23
was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
24
may be granted,” he may not proceed IFP and, instead, must pay the full filing fee in advance unless he
25
is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
The court has, on at least three prior occasions, dismissed civil actions commenced by plaintiff
2
while incarcerated for maliciousness or failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See
3
Tagle v. State of Nevada, 2:15-cv-02083-RCJ-GWF (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Tagle v.
4
State of Nevada, 2:15-cv-02358-MMD-PAL (dismissed for maliciousness and failure to state a claim);
5
and Tagle v. State of Nevada, 2:16-cv-00852-JAD-VCF (dismissed for maliciousness and failure to state
6
a claim). The court takes judicial notice of the records in these matters. Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged
7
he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury; therefore, his application to proceed in forma
8
pauperis should be denied, and he should be ordered pay the full filing fee within thirty days of the date
9
of an order adopting this report and recommendation, or his action will be dismissed.
10
RECOMMENDATION
11
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the District Judge enter an order DENYING
12
Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP (ECF No. 1); directing Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee within
13
thirty days of any order adopting this report and recommendation; and, advising Plaintiff that a failure
14
to do so will result in dismissal of this action.
15
Plaintiff should be aware of the following:
16
1. That he may file, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), specific written objections to this
17
Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of receipt. These objections should be titled
18
"Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation" and should be accompanied by points
19
and authorities for consideration by the district judge.
20
2. That this Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order and that any notice of appeal
21
pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of
22
judgment by the district court.
23
DATED: August 31, 2017.
24
____________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28
2
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?