Harris v. United States

Opinion

3 * * *

4 TYLER HARRIS, Case No. 2:25-cv-00380-GMN-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. AND

7 UNITED STATES, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

8 Defendant.

9 10 I. Introduction 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and 12 Civil Rights Complaint. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. Plaintiff’s IFP Application is complete; however, 13 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges claims against the United States only. ECF No. 1-1. Moreover, the 14 substance of Plaintiff’s Complaint is indecipherable. Id. Thus, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s IFP 15 application without prejudice, and recommends his Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 16 II. Discussion 17 The Court exercises its inherent authority to sua sponte screen cases that are “transparently 18 defective” in order to “save everyone time and legal expense.” Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 19 763 (7th Cir. 2003). A complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief 20 may be granted “if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 21 his claims that would entitle him to relief.” Buckey v. Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 22 1992). A complaint may also be dismissed as frivolous if it is premised on a nonexistent legal 23 interest or delusional factual scenario. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). “[A] 24 finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational 25 or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict 26 them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). 27 Here, Plaintiff states two causes of action naming only the United States as a defendant after 1 States is immune from suit seeking money damages. See, e.g., United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 2 392, 399 (1976). If this is not a sufficient basis to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, the allegations 3 made are indecipherable. Id. at 4-5. 4 III. Order 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma 6 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED without prejudice. 7 IV. Recommendation 8 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be 9 DISMISSED with prejudice. 10 Dated this 6th day of March, 2025. 11 12

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14

15 17 Under Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be in 18 writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court holds 19 the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections 20 within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). The Ninth Circuit also held 21 that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and 22 brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal 23 factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 24 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 25 26 27