Reed v. Chambers ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 MAX REED II, Case No. 2:22-cv-02158-ART-DJA 4 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 5 v. RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 SHANNON CHAMBERS, ET AL., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Pro se Plaintiff Max Reed II filed this action against various defendants for 10 claims related to working without pay or under the minimum wage while 11 incarcerated. (ECF No. 1.) U.S. Magistrate Judge Albregts issued a report and 12 recommendation recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice for 13 failure to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff filed an objection, 14 requesting that the Court remove this case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 15 (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for a status check and a request to add 16 supplemental authority to his objection. (ECF No. 15.) The Court overrules 17 Plaintiff’s objection and adopts Judge Albregts’s report and recommendation in 18 full. 19 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 20 Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a Court “may accept, reject, or modify, 21 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by [a] magistrate 22 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's 23 report and recommendation, the court is required to “make a de 24 novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which 25 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A court is not required to conduct “any 26 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. 27 Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 28 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff sues former Nevada Labor Commissioner Shannon Chambers; 3 Labor Director Terry Reynolds; George B., a caseworker at Southern Desert 4 Correctional Center (SDCC); L. Anderson, a caseworker at SDCC; Ms. Hill, an 5 inmate employment opportunity officer at High Desert State Prison (HDSP); 6 Dwayne Wilson, a culinary supervisor at HDSP; Ms. Gomez, a caseworker at 7 SDCC; Mr. Livingston, a correctional officer and work supervisor at SDCC; 8 Charles Daniels, the former Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) Director; 9 William Hutchings, a former SDCC warden; Silver State Industries; Brian 10 Williams, a warden at HDSP; and Jordan Noles, a canteen supervisor at SDCC. 11 Plaintiff asserts that while incarcerated, he worked without pay or for pay well 12 under minimum wage. He brings four causes of action: (1) violation of his 13 Fourteenth Amendment due process rights; (2) violations of Article 15, Section 14 16 and Article 1, Section 8 of the Nevada Constitution; (3) violations of Article 1, 15 Section 1 of the Nevada Constitution; and (4) violations of California laws. 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 As Judge Albregts explained, the Court previously granted Plaintiff’s 18 request to proceed in forma pauperis and screened the first amended complaint 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 3, 12). The Court dismissed the 20 complaint with leave to amend and required that an amended complaint be filed 21 by January 2, 2024. (ECF No. 12.) Judge Albregts informed Plaintiff that failure 22 to comply with the order would result in recommended dismissal of the case. (Id. 23 at 6.) Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or request an extension to the 24 deadline for doing so. As such, Judge Albregts recommended dismissal without 25 prejudice. 26 Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R, requesting that the Court remove 27 this case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 14 at 1.) This Court 28 cannot remove this case to the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff may file a notice of appeal 1 from this order to the Ninth Circuit. 2 In the objection, Plaintiff explains that he did not feel an amendment to the 3 complaint was necessary. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also makes several objections to 4 Judge Albregt’s prior order dismissing his amended complaint without prejudice. 5 Plaintiff argues that the Court ignored the plain language of Article 15, 6 Section 16 of the Nevada Constitution and ignored his contention that several 7 defendants were liable for violating his right to receive minimum wage under the 8 Nevada constitution. (Id.) In his order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint without 9 prejudice, Judge Albregts discussed this claim and explained that although 10 Article 15, Section 16 provides a mandated minimum wage, the Nevada Supreme 11 Court has concluded that Article 15, Section 16 does not protect inmates working 12 in inmate work programs. (ECF No. 12 at 4-5 (citing Gonzalez v. State, 515 P.3d 13 318 (Nev. 2022).) 14 Plaintiff also argues that the Court misapplied state law which classified 15 Plaintiff as a state employee, which he is not. (ECF No. 14 at 3.) Judge Albregts 16 explained that Plaintiff could amend his complaint to explain whether he worked 17 for a private employer, rather than a state entity. (ECF No. 12 at 3-4.) Plaintiff 18 has declined to do so. 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 || IV. CONCLUSION 2 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's objection (ECF No. 14) is overruled 3 || and Judge Albregts’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 13) is adopted in full. 4 Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 5 Plaintiffs motion for a status check and to add supplemental authority 6 || (ECF No. 15) is DENIED AS MOOT. 7 The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly. 8 9 DATED THIS 224 day of November 2024. 10 11 Ares jlorect Then 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28