Young v. Zuckerberg ( 2021 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 LaShaun Marquis Young, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01710-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiffs, 7 Report and Recommendation v. 8 Mark Zuckerberg, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Lashaun M. Young’s application to 12 proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s application is 13 incomplete. Under question two, Plaintiff asserts that he is not incarcerated, but is employed. 14 (ECF No. 1 at 1). Later, however, Plaintiff suggests that he is not employed. See id. at 1. Under 15 question seven, Plaintiff claims that no persons are dependent on him for support, but then lists 16 his mother. See id. at 2. As a result, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is eligible to 17 proceed in forma pauperis, however, given the flaws in his complaint, the Court will recommend 18 that his application be denied as moot. 19 18 U.S.C. § 1915(d) gives the Court the power to dismiss “claims whose factual 20 contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). Plaintiff has 21 failed to state any sort of cognizable claim. The Court cannot decipher any logical set of facts in 22 his submission or any rights that may have been violated. Rather, Plaintiff’s complaint is largely 23 incomprehensible. Plaintiff—on behalf of himself and Neisha Walker, Loretta Young, and his 24 company Theology of Time, Inc.—sues Mark Zuckerberg, Louis Farrakhan, George W. Bush Jr., 25 Barack Obama, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump. (ECF 26 No. 1-1 at 1-3). Plaintiff appears to allege that he has discovered a conspiracy “relating to the 27 economic and stimulus relief bills by the U.S. technological institutions” and Defendants. See id. 1 Office Administrative Remedy Appeal requests that he filed with the Federal Bureau of Prisons 2 that were returned rejected. See id. 8-12. In them, Plaintiff appears to assert that the Defendants 3 eavesdropped on him, cyberstalked him, stole his business ideas, and denied him access to mail 4 and the courts. See id. The Court concludes that this case lacks an arguable basis in law and fact. 5 As Plaintiff’s complaint is factually incomprehensible and does not set forth a plausible claim, it 6 should be dismissed without leave to amend as it is apparent that amendment is futile. 7 RECOMMENDATION 8 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed and that Plaintiff’s 9 application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot. 10 NOTICE 11 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be 12 in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after service of this 13 Notice. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has 14 been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 15 U.S. 140, 142 (1985) reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986). The Ninth Circuit has also held that 16 (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief 17 the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal factual 18 issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); 19 Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 20 21 DATED: October 20, 2021 22 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27