Warren v. Lee

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 15, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01639
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 TINIKA SE’CAL WARREN, Case No. 2:25-cv-01639-MMD-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. AND

7 DEBRA L. LEE; MGM GRAND CASINO; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

SEAN PAUL aka SEAN P. EAST; LIL 8 JOHN; EASTSIDE BOYS,

9 Defendants.

10 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and 12 Complaint (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1). Although the IFP is complete and granted, the Court exercises its 13 inherent authority to sua sponte screen cases that are “transparently defective” in order to “save 14 everyone time and legal expense.” Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 2003). Sua 15 sponte dismissal is appropriate where claims lack legal plausibility, and “it appears beyond doubt 16 that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [her] claim which would entitle [her] to relief.” 17 Buckey v. County of Los Angeles, F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citation omitted). 18 Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint is a series of allegations regarding events that simply make no 19 sense, fails to identify a cogent cause of action, and are unconnected to Las Vegas. ECF No. 1-1 at 20 3-6. In sum, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint is properly dismissed as frivolous as it is premised 21 on nonexistent legal interests and delusional factual scenarios. Id.; Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S 319, 22 327-38 (1989). 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma 24 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be filed on the docket 26 and shown as dismissed. 27 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that mail sent to Plaintiff’s current address has been returned 2 undeliverable prompting the Court to separately enter an Order requiring her to update her address 3 within 15 days of the date of this Order, and supporting a sua sponte extension to the due date for 4 any objection to this Order to October 20, 2025. 5 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be dismissed 6 with prejudice. 7 Dated this 15th day of September, 2025.

9 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 12 NOTICE 13 Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be in writing and filed with the 14 Clerk of the Court no later than October 20, 2025. The Supreme Court holds the courts of appeal 15 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 16 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). The Ninth Circuit also held that (1) failure to file 17 objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable 18 issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal factual issues from the order 19 of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley 20 United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

21 22 23 24 25 26 27