Macias v. U.S. District Court Judge Kari A Dooley ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 Carlos Macias, Case No. 2:24-cv-00483-GMN-BNW 5 Plaintiff, Report and Recommendation 6 v. 7 U.S. District Judge Kari Dooley, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Pro se plaintiff Carlos Macias brings this civil-rights case from acts seemingly arising out 11 of Connecticut (or Texas). The Court previously granted his applications to proceed in forma 12 pauperis and dismissed his complaint with leave to amend. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff timely amended 13 his complaint. ECF No. 8. In turn, the Court will screen Plaintiff’s 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 11 Plaintiff alleges he filed a Section 1983 complaint in the United States District Court, 12 Southern District of Texas. He alleges that the district court failed to docket a habeas claim (and 13 perhaps the Section 1983 claim as well). His allegations seem to indicate he appealed to the Fifth 14 Circuit and that he re-filed these claims. He also provides the factual basis for these claims, which 15 involve the alleged violations of several constitutional rights by United States District Court 16 Judge Kari Dooley (who appears to be a District Judge in the District of Connecticut). 17 Venue may be raised by a court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet filed a 18 responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not run. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 19 (9th Cir. 1986). Section 1391(b) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code provides, in pertinent part, that a 20 “civil action may be brought in – (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all 21 defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; [or] (2) a judicial district in 22 which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a 23 substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); 790 24 F.2d at 1488; Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 842 (9th Cir. 1986). 25 “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or 26 district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interests of justice, transfer such case to any district or 27 division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 1 Plaintiff does not allege that any of the events giving rise to his claims occurred in this 2 || district. Plaintiff's claims bear no relation whatsoever to the District of Nevada. Accordingly, the 3 || Court finds venue is not proper in this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). In turn, the Court 4 || recommends that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 5 C. Conclusion 6 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without 7 || leave to amend. 8 NOTICE 9 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned 10 || to this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation 11 || may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being 12 || served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely 13 || objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 14 |} 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 16 DATED: July 23, 2024 17 Li las ar@ fa BRENDA WEKSLER 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28