Megan Frances Franks v. Lyon County Sheriff’s Office, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00461
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 MEGAN FRANCES FRANKS, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00461-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 LYON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et 9 al.,

10 Defendants. 11 12 Pro se Plaintiff Megan Frances Franks initiated this action by filing an application 13 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 9) and a civil rights complaint (ECF No. 1- 14 1 (“Complaint”)) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Lyon County Sheriff’s Office 15 and Deputy Sheriff Nicolas Baugh for unlawful search and seizure of her home under the 16 Fourth Amendment and invasion of privacy under Nevada law, for deprivation of due 17 process rights, and for retaliation and coercion. (ECF No. 1-1.) Franks subsequently filed 18 multiple miscellaneous motions.1 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation 19 (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 21), recommending 20 the Court: (1) deny as moot Franks’ IFP application (ECF Nos. 9, 10, 12); (2) dismiss the 21 Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) without prejudice but without leave to amend; and (3) deny as 22 23

24 1Miscellaneous motions include duplicate IFP applications (ECF Nos. 10, 12), a 25 motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 11), a motion to dismiss warrant and charges (ECF No. 13), a motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 14), a motion for 26 protective order (ECF No. 15), a motion asserting “Constitutional Violations, Evidence Tampering, Retaliation, and Denial of Medical Care, and Request for Judicial Relief” (ECF 27 No. 17), an emergency motion for “Protective Intervention and Relief due to Law Enforcement Misconduct and Safety Risks” (ECF No. 18), and a motion for status update 28 1 moot the miscellaneous motions (ECF Nos. 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19). (ECF No. 21 at 1, 8- 2 9.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to file an objection to the R&R. Because there is no 3 objection, and, as further explained below, the Court will adopt the R&R. 4 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review and is 5 satisfied that Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 6 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 7 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 8 findings and recommendations.” (emphasis in original)). As mentioned, Judge Baldwin 9 first recommends the Court deny as moot the IFP application (ECF Nos. 9, 10, 12) 10 because, upon review, the application shows that Franks is unable to pay the filing fee.3 11 (ECF No. 21 at 2.) Judge Baldwin next recommends dismissal of the Complaint (ECF No. 12 1-1) without prejudice, but without leave to amend, in part because, under the Younger 13 abstention doctrine, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state criminal 14 proceedings—even where a constitutional violation is alleged—absent extraordinary 15 circumstances posing a threat of irreparable harm. (ECF No. 21 at 4-6 (citing Younger v. 16 Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)).) Here, Franks is the subject of ongoing criminal proceedings 17 in state court, which have not reached final adjudication, and the Court has not identified 18 any extraordinary circumstances posing a threat of irreparable harm. (See id. at 6.) 19 Moreover, Judge Baldwin recommends dismissal of the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) for lack 20 of subject-matter jurisdiction over Franks’ purely state law claims and because Franks 21 fails to sufficiently allege a federal civil rights or other federal claim. (ECF No. 21 at 6-7.) 22 Finally, Judge Baldwin recommends denying the miscellaneous motions as moot, noting 23

24 2The Court notes that, since the R&R was filed, Franks has filed additional miscellaneous motions: duplicate IFP applications (ECF Nos. 22, 25) and motions 25 asserting “Constitutional Violations, Evidence Tampering, Retaliation, and Denial of Medical Care, and Request for Judicial Relief” and a motion for court assistance with 26 service (ECF Nos. 23, 24, 26). 27 3Accordingly, the Court will also deny the subsequently filed duplicate IFP 28 applications (ECF Nos. 22, 25) as moot. 1 || the requests are repetitive and fail to clearly identify any issues for the Court to resolve.‘ 2 || (See ECF Nos. 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19.) Having reviewed the R&R, Judge Baldwin did 3 || not clearly err. 4 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 5 || No. 21) is accepted and adopted in full. 6 It is further ordered that Franks’ IFP applications (ECF No. 9, 10, 12, 22, 25) are 7 || denied as moot. 8 It is further ordered that Franks’ Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without 9 || prejudice and without leave to amend. 10 It is further ordered that Franks’ miscellaneous motions (ECF Nos. 11, 13, 14, 15, 11 || 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 26) are denied as moot. 12 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly and close 13 || this case. 14 DATED THIS 14" Day of October 2025. 15

17 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “Accordingly, the Court will deny the subsequently filed miscellaneous motions (ECF Nos. 23, 24, 26) as moot.