1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 * * *
4 Sui Juris Angalique Daysharie Gibbs, Case No. 2:26-cv-01428-CDS-BNW
5 Plaintiff, ORDER and REPORT AND 6 v. RECOMMENDATION
7 The State of Nevada, et al.,
8 Defendants.
9 10 Pro se plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint. ECF 11 No. 1. Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to 12 prepay fees or costs or give security for them. Accordingly, this Court will grant her request to 13 proceed in forma pauperis. This Court now screens her complaint. 14 I. ANALYSIS 15 A. Screening standard 16 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 17 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 18 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 19 granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard 21 for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 22 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 23 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 24 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 25 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 26 his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 27 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 1 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of 2 material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler 3 Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 4 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff 5 must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 6 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. 7 Unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se 8 plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s 9 deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 10 B. Screening the complaint 11 Plaintiff’s claims are rooted in sovereign citizen ideology. She contends that she is a 12 “living woman” being prosecuted as a separate “corporate fiction,” that she has not knowingly or 13 voluntarily consented to be treated as a “statutory citizen,” and that statutory laws, codes, and 14 regulations therefore do not apply to her. Plaintiff further asserts that the state court lacks 15 jurisdiction over her person because no “lawful contract, agreement, or oath” exists establishing 16 her consent to be governed, and that jurisdiction has been “assumed and not proven.” 17 Across her claims, Plaintiff alleges that District Attorney Acosta and the State of Nevada 18 violated her rights by bringing criminal charges against her. She also alleges the Court 19 Administrator and Deputy Clerk deprived her of access to the court by refusing to file her 20 affidavit and motion to dismiss in the underlying state criminal case. In addition, she alleges 21 Judge Mendoza has allowed her constitutional rights to be violated by allowing a case to move 22 forward when there was no jurisdiction. 23 As relief, Plaintiff requests dismissal of the underlying state criminal case and monetary 24 damages of no less than $9,000,000.00, with a stated willingness to negotiate if she is not sent to 25 prison on a separate matter. 26 Plaintiff alleges violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and due process rights from the 27 ongoing state criminal proceedings in case number C-26-397502. She names the following 1 defendants: the State of Nevada, District Attorney Kassandra Acosta, Judge Mendoza, Court 2 Administrator Anntoinette Naumec-Miller, and Deputy Clerk Steven D. Grierson. 3 It is evident Plaintiff adheres to the type of “sovereign citizen” theory that has been 4 rejected by courts around the country as frivolous, irrational, or unintelligible. United States v. 5 Ward, 182 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that contentions based on sovereign citizen arguments 6 are “frivolous” and that “courts ordinarily reject similar contentions without extended 7 argument.”). “Sovereign citizens,” like all citizens of the United States, are subject to the laws of 8 the jurisdiction in which they reside. El v. Ally Bank, 2022 WL 2904867, at *2 (D. Nev. 2022) 9 (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th 10 Cir. 2011) (“Regardless of an individual’s claimed status of descent, be it as a ‘sovereign citizen,’ 11 a ‘secured-party creditor,’ or a ‘flesh-and-blood human being,’ that person is not beyond the 12 jurisdiction of the courts. These theories should be rejected summarily, however they are 13 presented.”). States have the inherent authority to charge individuals with criminal offenses under 14 their own statutes. Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of City of New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 15 (1837) (holding states can prosecute any individual found within their jurisdiction for offenses 16 committed within their jurisdiction against their criminal law). Federal courts may not enjoin or 17 otherwise intervene in ongoing state criminal cases except in extremely narrow circumstances, 18 none of which are present in this case. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). As a result, this 19 Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.1 20 1 In addition, all named Defendants are entitled to immunity from suit. The State of Nevada is 21 entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 22 U.S. 356, 363 (2001) (“The ultimate guarantee of the Eleventh Amendment is that nonconsenting States may not be sued by private individuals in federal court.”). District Attorney Acosta is 23 entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for all acts taken in her role initiating and pursuing the criminal prosecution against Plaintiff. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). Judge Mendoza 24 is entitled to absolute judicial immunity for all acts taken in her judicial capacity in the underlying proceedings. Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 * * *
4 Sui Juris Angalique Daysharie Gibbs, Case No. 2:26-cv-01428-CDS-BNW
5 Plaintiff, ORDER and REPORT AND 6 v. RECOMMENDATION
7 The State of Nevada, et al.,
8 Defendants.
9 10 Pro se plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint. ECF 11 No. 1. Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to 12 prepay fees or costs or give security for them. Accordingly, this Court will grant her request to 13 proceed in forma pauperis. This Court now screens her complaint. 14 I. ANALYSIS 15 A. Screening standard 16 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 17 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 18 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 19 granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard 21 for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 22 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 23 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 24 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 25 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 26 his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 27 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 1 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of 2 material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler 3 Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 4 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff 5 must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 6 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. 7 Unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se 8 plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s 9 deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 10 B. Screening the complaint 11 Plaintiff’s claims are rooted in sovereign citizen ideology. She contends that she is a 12 “living woman” being prosecuted as a separate “corporate fiction,” that she has not knowingly or 13 voluntarily consented to be treated as a “statutory citizen,” and that statutory laws, codes, and 14 regulations therefore do not apply to her. Plaintiff further asserts that the state court lacks 15 jurisdiction over her person because no “lawful contract, agreement, or oath” exists establishing 16 her consent to be governed, and that jurisdiction has been “assumed and not proven.” 17 Across her claims, Plaintiff alleges that District Attorney Acosta and the State of Nevada 18 violated her rights by bringing criminal charges against her. She also alleges the Court 19 Administrator and Deputy Clerk deprived her of access to the court by refusing to file her 20 affidavit and motion to dismiss in the underlying state criminal case. In addition, she alleges 21 Judge Mendoza has allowed her constitutional rights to be violated by allowing a case to move 22 forward when there was no jurisdiction. 23 As relief, Plaintiff requests dismissal of the underlying state criminal case and monetary 24 damages of no less than $9,000,000.00, with a stated willingness to negotiate if she is not sent to 25 prison on a separate matter. 26 Plaintiff alleges violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and due process rights from the 27 ongoing state criminal proceedings in case number C-26-397502. She names the following 1 defendants: the State of Nevada, District Attorney Kassandra Acosta, Judge Mendoza, Court 2 Administrator Anntoinette Naumec-Miller, and Deputy Clerk Steven D. Grierson. 3 It is evident Plaintiff adheres to the type of “sovereign citizen” theory that has been 4 rejected by courts around the country as frivolous, irrational, or unintelligible. United States v. 5 Ward, 182 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that contentions based on sovereign citizen arguments 6 are “frivolous” and that “courts ordinarily reject similar contentions without extended 7 argument.”). “Sovereign citizens,” like all citizens of the United States, are subject to the laws of 8 the jurisdiction in which they reside. El v. Ally Bank, 2022 WL 2904867, at *2 (D. Nev. 2022) 9 (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th 10 Cir. 2011) (“Regardless of an individual’s claimed status of descent, be it as a ‘sovereign citizen,’ 11 a ‘secured-party creditor,’ or a ‘flesh-and-blood human being,’ that person is not beyond the 12 jurisdiction of the courts. These theories should be rejected summarily, however they are 13 presented.”). States have the inherent authority to charge individuals with criminal offenses under 14 their own statutes. Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of City of New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 15 (1837) (holding states can prosecute any individual found within their jurisdiction for offenses 16 committed within their jurisdiction against their criminal law). Federal courts may not enjoin or 17 otherwise intervene in ongoing state criminal cases except in extremely narrow circumstances, 18 none of which are present in this case. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). As a result, this 19 Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.1 20 1 In addition, all named Defendants are entitled to immunity from suit. The State of Nevada is 21 entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 22 U.S. 356, 363 (2001) (“The ultimate guarantee of the Eleventh Amendment is that nonconsenting States may not be sued by private individuals in federal court.”). District Attorney Acosta is 23 entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for all acts taken in her role initiating and pursuing the criminal prosecution against Plaintiff. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). Judge Mendoza 24 is entitled to absolute judicial immunity for all acts taken in her judicial capacity in the underlying proceedings. Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004). As to Court 25 Administrator Naumec-Miller and Deputy Clerk Grierson, while quasi-judicial immunity may not 26 extend to independent decisions to reject pro se filings made without judicial direction, these defendants may nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity to the extent they were acting 27 pursuant to court rules and procedures in returning Plaintiff’s documents. This Court need not resolve the precise scope of immunity as to these two defendants, however, because even 1 II. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in 3 forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to 4 conclusion without prepaying fees or costs or giving security for them. Nevertheless, the full 5 filing fee shall still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation 6 Reform Act. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the 8 Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, the Clark County Detention Center shall pay to the Clerk of the 9 United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month’s deposits to the 10 account of Angalique Daysharie Gibbs, #7017579 (in months that the account exceeds $10.00) 11 until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk shall send a copy of this 12 order to the attention of the warden at the Clark County Detention Center, 330 S. Casino Center 13 Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89101. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, even if this action is dismissed, the full filing fee 15 shall still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform 16 Act. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must detach and separately file 18 Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 19 / / 20 / / 21 / / 22 / / 23 / / 24
25 absent a showing that she was denied the ability to pursue a non-frivolous legal claim, which she cannot demonstrate here given that the documents she sought to file were grounded entirely in 26 frivolous sovereign citizen legal theories. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351–52 (1996). Lastly, 27 Plaintiff has no private right of action to bring suit under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242. Robertson v. Catholic Cmty. Servs. of W. Wash., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12658, at *2, 2023 WL 3597383 (9th 1 IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 2 3 NOTICE 4 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned 5 || to this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation 6 || may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being 7 || served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely 8 || objection may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s Order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 9 || 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 11 DATED: May 20, 2026 12 13 Ling Stn BRENDA WEKSLER □ 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28