Johnson v. Pope Francis Paul et al

Filing 12

ORDERED that Judge Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4 ) is accepted and adopted in full. It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 ) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to f ile Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1 -1). It is further ordered that Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1 -1) is dismissed, with prejudice. It is further ordered that the remaining outstanding motions (ECF Nos. 3 -1, 3 -2, 3 - 3, 3 -4, 3 -5, 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 ) are denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly, and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/17/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF
Case 3:21-cv-00044-MMD-CLB Document 12 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 *** 6 CLARENCE D. JOHNSON, JR., 7 8 9 Case No. 3:21-cv-00044-MMD-CLB Plaintiff, ORDER v. POPE FRANCIS PAUL, et al., Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Clarence D. Johnson, Jr. brings this action against Pope Francis 12 Paul, Biden, Trump, Obama, United Nations, Russell Moore, and Queen Elizabeth 13 alleging violations of federal and international law. (ECF No. 1-1) Before the Court is the 14 Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate 15 Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 4), recommending Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 16 forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) be granted, his Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be dismissed, with 17 prejudice, and his miscellaneous outstanding motions (ECF Nos. 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5)1 18 be denied as moot. Plaintiff had until February 9, 2021, to file an objection. To date, no 19 objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court 20 adopts the R&R, and will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, with prejudice, and will deny all 21 outstanding motions as moot. 22 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 23 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 24 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 25 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 26 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 27 28 1Since Judge Baldwin issued her R&R, Plaintiff has filed six new motions (ECF Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11), all of which would logically be moot as well if Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Case 3:21-cv-00044-MMD-CLB Document 12 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 3 1 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 2 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 3 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 4 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 5 clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 6 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 7 satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin recommends first that 8 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be granted because Plaintiff cannot 9 pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 4 at 2.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a district court must 10 screen an in forma pauperis complaint to determine whether dismissal is appropriate. See 11 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Watison v. Carter, 668 12 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has 13 failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the 14 same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a 15 claim.”). After accepting all the allegations in the Complaint as true and resolving all 16 doubts in Plaintiff’s favor, see Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969), Judge 17 Baldwin found that Plaintiff’s Complaint “states no claim upon which relief may be 18 granted.” (ECF No. 4 at 4.) Judge Baldwin reasoned that the “rambling [and] nonsensical” 19 nature of the Complaint failed to meet the requisite “short and plain statement of claim 20 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” (Id. (citing Bell Atl. Co. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 21 544, 555 (2007).) The Complaint does not state any clear theory of jurisdiction over the 22 myriad Defendants, nor does it go beyond stating gesturing violations of “federal statute 23 [and] international law.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 1-2.) Judge Baldwin further reasoned that “given 24 the vague nature of allegations, amendment would be futile.” (ECF No. 4 at 4.) The Court 25 agrees with Judge Baldwin. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the 26 Court will adopt the R&R in full. 27 28 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) is accepted and adopted in full. 2 Case 3:21-cv-00044-MMD-CLB Document 12 Filed 02/17/21 Page 3 of 3 1 2 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted. 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to file Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 4 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed, with 5 6 7 prejudice. It is further ordered that the remaining outstanding motions (ECF Nos. 3-1, 3-2, 33, 3-4, 3-5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11) are denied as moot. 8 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly, and close this case. 9 DATED THIS 17th Day of February 2021. 10 11 12 13 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?