Harris v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 7 8 SMILEY JAMES HARRIS, Case No. 21-cv-00820-RMI

9 Plaintiff, INSTRUCTION TO REASSIGN CASE 10 v. TO DISTRICT JUDGE; AND, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Re: Dkt. No. 1 12 Defendant.

13 15 Pending before the court is a Petition (dkt. 1) which, for the reasons stated below, is due to 16 be dismissed with prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the case or to otherwise 17 communicate with the court. On February 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a document which was docketed 18 as a “Petition for Quiet Title against USA” (dkt. 1). Because the Petition failed to state a 19 cognizable claim, it was dismissed with leave to amend on May 10, 2021 (see Order (dkt. 9)). 20 Plaintiff’s deadline for filing an amended petition – June 9, 2021 – has come and gone and 21 Plaintiff has failed to file any amended pleading or to otherwise communicate with the court. 22 Because the “Petition” has not been served, and because the unserved Defendant (ostensibly the 23 United States) has not consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, the undersigned lacks 24 jurisdiction to enter a dispositive order in this case. See Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503 (9th 25 Cir. 2017) (holding that the consent of all parties, including unserved defendants, is a prerequisite 26 to a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction to enter dispositive decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)). 27 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is instructed to REASSIGN this case to a District Judge such that 2 Plaintiff claims to have purchased nearly 600 acres of land belonging to the United States 3 by paying the sum of $187.26 to the tax collector of Lake County, California, based on his 4 || contention that the municipality of Lake County somehow levied a local tax upon federal land; 5 and then, for the nonpayment of that amount, the municipality sold and conveyed that parcel of 6 || federal land to Plaintiff upon his payment of the allegedly delinquent sum. See generally Order of 7 Dismissal (dkt. 9). For the reasons stated in the court’s Order of dismissal, Plaintiff had not 8 complied with the pleading requirements set forth in the Quiet Title Act (28 U.S.C. § 2409a) and, 9 therefore, had failed to state a claim. Those requirements were then set forth and clearly explained 10 || to Plaintiff in the Order (dkt. 9) dismissing his Petition with leave to amend. The deadline for that 11 amendment was June 9, 2021 (see id. at 6) however Plaintiff has neither filed an amended 12 || pleading, nor otherwise communicated with the court. In any event, as mentioned in the court’s 5 13 order dismissing with leave to amend, it appeared highly unlikely that Plaintiff would be able to 14 || remedy the defects in his pleading due to the wealth of authority that makes it clear that (with very 3 15 || few exceptions) federal property is wholly immune from local taxation. In light of Plaintiff's 16 || failure to file an amended complaint, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that his case be 5 17 dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. 18 Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district court 19 within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) & (C); 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Civil Local Rule 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time 21 may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. 23 Dated: July 6, 2021 24 Ml Z 25 6 ROBERT M. ILLMAN United States Magistrate Judge 27 28