Davis v. Department of Homeland Security ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 HASAN MALIK DAVIS, Case No. 3:22-CV-00357-ART-CLB 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 9) 9 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 10 SECURITY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 I. SUMMARY 14 Pro se Plaintiff Hasan Malik Davis (“Davis”), who is an inmate in the 15 custody of the Washoe County Detention Center (“WCDC”), brings this action 16 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Department of Homeland Security 17 (“DHS”), Clayton County Detention Center, the Henderson Police Department, 18 and the Clark County Detention Center. (ECF No. 1-1). Before the Court is a 19 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. 20 Baldwin (ECF No. 9), recommending the Court grant Davis’s Application to 21 proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1), dismiss Davis’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) 22 with prejudice, and deny Davis’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 4), Motion for Copies 23 of Complaint (ECF No. 7) and Motion for ADR Settlement Conference (ECF No. 8). 24 Because the Court agrees with Judge Baldwin’s the Court will adopt the 25 R&R in full and additionally denies as moot subsequent motions filed by Davis 26 (ECF Nos. 13, 14). 27 II. BACKGROUND 28 Davis claims that the DHS secretly runs the Clayton County Detention 1 Center in Jonesboro, Georgia, and that he was implanted with a radio-based 2 tracker by DHS in 2002. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3). Davis further claims that the 3 “Henderson Police Department Detention Center” violated his rights when it 4 arrested him for squatting in a house in which Davis “paid all utility bills.” (Id. at 5 4). Davis further argues that DHS also secretly runs the Clark County Detention 6 Center, the Henderson Police Department, and alleges police brutality on the part 7 of various officers affiliated with these institutions. (Id. at 5-6). Davis requests 8 “100 millions [sic] in U.S. Silver Dollars” as well as all assets and land owned by 9 DHS as relief for these alleged violations of his civil rights. 10 In his objection, Davis argues that his treatment by DHS violates Article 5 11 of the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights. (ECF No. 10 at 1). 12 Specifically, Davis claims that “Officer E. Wright” struck Davis in the head with 13 his flashlight, causing a severe head injury. (Id. at 2). Davis again argues that 14 Clayton County Detention Center is a DHS facility. (Id.). 15 III. LEGAL STANDARD 16 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 17 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where 18 a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then 19 the Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 20 [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. The Court’s review 21 is thus de novo because Plaintiff filed his Objection styled as a “Notice of Motion 22 to Appeal”. (ECF No. 10). 23 IV. DISCUSSION 24 Magistrate Judge Baldwin concluded that Davis stated no claim upon 25 which relief can be granted and that amendment would be futile because, among 26 other reasons, “Davis’s largely incomprehensible narrative makes it nearly 27 impossible for the Court to identify the factual or legal basis for his claims or the 28 nature of his requested relief.” (ECF No. 9 at 3). Magistrate Judge Baldwin further 1 concluded that leave to amend would be futile. (ECF No. 9 at 4). The Complaint 2 not only does not contain detailed factual allegations, but does not even offer “a 3 formulaic recitation of the elements.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 4 555 (2007). All or part of a complaint filed by an incarcerated person may be 5 dismissed if that person’s claims lack an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 6 This includes claims based on legal conclusions that are untenable (e.g., claims 7 against defendants who are immune from suit or claims of infringement of a legal 8 interest which clearly does not exist), as well as claims based on fanciful factual 9 allegations (e.g., fantastic or delusional scenarios). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 10 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 11 1991). 12 Here, Davis alleges that DHS secretly runs several county detention centers 13 around the country and that he was implanted with a “radio frequency . . . 14 device.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 3). These are plainly fanciful factual allegations. 15 Therefore, this Court agrees with Judge Baldwin and adopts her Report and 16 Recommendation (ECF No. 9) in full. 17 V. CONCLUSION 18 The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to 19 several cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and 20 cases and determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect 21 the outcome of the issues before the Court. 22 It is therefore ordered that Davis’s objection (ECF No. 10) to the Report and 23 Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin is overruled. The 24 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) is therefore adopted. 25 It is further ordered that Davis’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed with 26 prejudice. 27 It is further ordered that Davis’s Motion to Amend, (ECF No. 4), Motion for 28 Copies of Complaint, (ECF No. 7), Motion for ADR Settlement Conference, (ECF 1 || No. 8), Motion for Appointment of Counsel, (ECF No. 13), and Motion for ADR 2 || Settlement, (ECF No. 14), are denied as moot. 3 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to close this case. 4 5 6 DATED THIS 3rd day of January 2023. ° Ae + lossd Idem 9 ANNE R. TRAUM 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28