Anderson v. City of Las Vegas

District Court, D. Nevada

Anderson v. City of Las Vegas

Trial Court Opinion

1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 BLAKE L. ANDERSON, Case No. 3:18-cv-00486-MMD-CBC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CITY OF LAS VEGAS, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Blake L. Anderson asserts claims under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

against the City 12 of Las Vegas, the State of Nevada, and the judge, the deputy district attorney and the 13 deputy public defender involved in a criminal case where the presiding judge denied 14 pretrial release. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3-5.) Before the Court is the Report and 15 Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla 16 B. Carry (ECF No. 10), recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s application to 17 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”) and dismiss this action without prejudice 18 and without leave to amend. Plaintiff had until October 1, 2019 to file an objection. On 19 October 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Answer to Order to Show Cause” (ECF 20 No. 11), which the Court will construe as his objection to the R&R. The Court agrees with 21 Judge Carry and will adopt the R&R. 22 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 23 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1). Where a party 24 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 25 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 26 recommendation] to which objection is made.”

Id.

Where a party fails to object, however, 27 the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the 1 Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s 2 report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. 3 Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114

(9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 4 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 5 objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone,

263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226

(D.

6 Ariz. 2003

) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that 7 district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection”). 8 Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the Court may 9 accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone,

263 F. Supp. 2d at 10

1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no 11 objection was filed). 12 Judge Carry found that Plaintiff’s complaint challenges his state court criminal 13 proceedings, but under Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477

(1994), Plaintiff must first 14 establish that the underlying conviction or sentence has been invalidated. (ECF No. 10 at 15 4-5.) While it is not clear whether Plaintiff has been convicted since his allegations 16 involved the state judge’s denial of bail, the Heck doctrine applies to cases where criminal 17 charges are pending. Harvey v. Waldron,

210 F.3d 1008, 1015

(9th Cir. 2000) (“[A] § 1983 18 Fourth Amendment claim alleging illegal search and seizure does not accrue under Heck 19 until the criminal charges have been dismissed.”), overruled in part on other grounds by 20 Wallace v. Kato,

549 U.S. 384, 393-394

(2007). Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are not 21 cognizable under Heck until his criminal case is dismissed or if convicted, the conviction 22 has been rendered invalid. The Court thus agrees with Judge Carry and overrules 23 Plaintiff’s objection. 24 It is therefore ordered that Judge Carry’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25 10) is adopted in full. 26 It is ordered that Plaintiff’s IFP Application (ECF No. 1) is granted. 27 It is further ordered that the Clerk detach and file the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 1 It is further ordered that the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without 2 || leave to amend. 3 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for screening (ECF No. 1-2) is denied as 4 || moot. 5 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and 6 || close this case. 7 8 9 DATED THIS 29" day of October 2019.

10 —_ 14 Al Sho 12 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown