Harris v. Los Angeles County

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Tyler Harris, Case No. 2:25-cv-00231-APG-BNW

5 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER AND 6 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

7 Los Angeles County,

8 Defendant. 9 10 The court previously screened Plaintiff’s complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 11 ECF No. 3. It recommended that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. Id. In so 12 doing, the court explained that (1) plaintiff had not provided sufficient factual allegations to state 13 a claim and (2) he did not have a private right action to assert criminal statutes as claims. Id. 14 On that same day Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 5. As a result, the court 15 will withdraw its previous report and recommendation at ECF No. 3.1 For the reasons stated 16 above, the court recommends that the amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 17 I. Analysis 18 In screening a complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that 19 are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary 20 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is 21 frivolous if it contains “claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless,” such as “claims 22 describing fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). 23 Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for failure to 24 state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 25 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual 26 27 1 matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft v. 2 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 3 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 4 his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 5 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 6 Venue may be raised by a court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet filed a 7 responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not run. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 8 (9th Cir. 1986). Section 1391(b) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code provides, in pertinent part, that a 9 “civil action may be brought in – (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all 10 defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; [or] (2) a judicial district in 11 which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a 12 substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); 13 Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488; Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 842 14 (9th Cir. 1986). “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong 15 division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interests of justice, transfer such case to any 16 district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 17 Plaintiff’s complaint is hard to understand. Nevertheless, it is clear that the alleged 18 conduct at issue took place in Los Angeles, California. Thus, Plaintiff's claims bear no relation 19 whatsoever to the District of Nevada. Accordingly, the court finds venue is not proper in this 20 district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488. Accordingly, the court will 21 recommend that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend in this district.2 22 23 24 25

26 2 The court also notes that (1) several of his claims describe fantastic and delusional scenarios, (2) that 27 there is no private right of action to assert criminal statutes as claims, and (3) some of the claims under §1983 are improperly raised. Nevertheless, given the court finds venue to be lacking it will not provide 1 I. Conclusion 2 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the complaint (ECF No. 5) be 3 || DISMISSED without leave to amend. Plaintiff may pursue his claims in the appropriate district 4 || court. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation at ECF No. 3 is 6 || withdrawn. 7 NOTICE 8 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned 9 || to this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation 10 || may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being 11 || served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely 12 || objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 13 |} 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 15 DATED: February 11, 2025 16 Kx gm la We Earn, 17 Brenda Weksler 8 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28