Jones v. State of Nevada ( 2023 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 JASON JONES, Case No. 2:22-cv-00935-ART-BNW 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 STATE OF NEVADA, 9 Defendant. 10 Pro se Plaintiff Jason Jones (“Jones”) brings this claim challenging the 11 constitutionality of Senate Bill 182. (ECF No. 4-1.) He seeks: (1) to vacate his 12 conviction; (2) have Senate Bill 182 “removed;” (3) “remove” any works “derived” 13 from Senate Bill 182; (4) to receive a prevailing wage for the years he was 14 incarcerated; and (5) to charge all individuals who were put on notice of the 15 “facially defective Senate Bill 182.” Id. at 10. Before the Court is the Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate 17 Judge Weksler (ECF No. 8), screening Plaintiff’s Complaint and recommending 18 that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s motions (ECF 19 Nos. 5 and 6) be denied as moot. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 20 adopts the R&R. 21 Judge Weksler identified two primary problems with Plaintiff’s complaint. 22 First, Plaintiff may not challenge his conviction under Section 1983. If a Section 23 1983 case seeking damages alleges constitutional violations that would 24 necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence, the prisoner must 25 establish that the underlying sentence or conviction has been invalidated on 26 appeal, by habeas petition, or through a similar proceeding. See Heck v. 27 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-87 (1994). Second, Plaintiff’s constitutional 28 1 challenge to Senate Bill 182 fails on the merits. Accordingly, Judge Weksler 2 recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed because it lacks an arguable 3 basis either in law or in fact. 4 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 5 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where 6 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 7 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 8 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. 9 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 10 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 11 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 12 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 13 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 14 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 15 Because Plaintiff did not object and the Court is satisfied that Judge 16 Weksler did not clearly err, the Court adopts the R&R. 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Weksler’s Report and 18 Recommendation (ECF No. 8) is accepted and adopted in full; 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court file (ECF No. 4-1) 20 as Plaintiff’s Complaint and that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH 21 PREJUDICE; 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 5; 6) be 23 DENIED AS MOOT; 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter Judgment 2 || and administratively close this case. 3 DATED THIS 10t Day of March 2023. 4 5 An [oad de 6 ANNE R. TRAUM 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28