1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 ZACKERY CRABTREE, Case No. 3:19-cv-00755-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 KIMBERLY WANKER, 9 Defendant. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Plaintiff Zackery Crabtree, currently incarcerated and in the custody of the 13 Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) filed suit under

, alleging a 14 conspiracy to violate NRS § 453.3405 between the district attorney, judge, and county 15 sheriff involved in his criminal case—this case is focused on the judge.1 (ECF No. 3.) 16 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of 17 United States Magistrate Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 7), recommending the Court dismiss 18 this case with prejudice. Plaintiff filed an objection to Judge Baldwin’s Recommendation. 19 (ECF No. 8.) As further explained below, the Court will overrule Plaintiff’s objection 20 because the Court agrees with Judge Baldwin’s analysis, will fully adopt the R&R, and 21 dismiss this case. 22 II. BACKGROUND 23 As relevant to Plaintiff’s objection, Judge Baldwin recommends dismissing this case 24 for two, alternative reasons. (ECF No. 7 at 5.) Specifically, Judge Baldwin recommends 25 dismissing it because Plaintiff’s case is barred by Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994)—because Plaintiff is challenging the constitutionality of his state-court criminal 27

28 1Plaintiff has filed four nearly identical cases. The other three are Case Nos. 3:19- 1 conviction—and because named Defendant Judge Wanker is absolutely immune from 2 damages actions for her judicial acts under Section 1983. (Id.) Plaintiff objects to only the 3 judicial immunity reason for dismissal Judge Baldwin provides in the R&R, arguing that 4 Judge Wanker is not entitled to judicial immunity because she allegedly violated a state 5 statute in apparently allowing Plaintiff to enter into a plea deal. (ECF No. 8.) 6 III. LEGAL STANDARD 7 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 8 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 9 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 10 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 11 recommendation] to which objection is made.”

Because of Plaintiff’s objection to the 12 R&R, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of it, including the other documents filed 13 in this case. 14 IV. DISCUSSION 15 Following a de novo review of the R&R and the other records in this case, the Court 16 finds good cause to accept and adopt Judge Baldwin’s R&R in full. The Court addresses 17 below Plaintiff’s objection. 18 The dispositive issue with Plaintiff’s objection is that he did not object to the primary 19 reason Judge Baldwin recommends his case be dismissed—because it is Heck-barred. 20 (ECF No. 8.) Moreover, the the Court agrees with Judge Baldwin that his case is Heck- 21 barred. Thus, the Court will accept and adopt in full the R&R. However, the Court also 22 notes it agrees with Judge Baldwin that Judge Wanker is likely entitled to judicial immunity 23 here, as Plaintiff appears to sue her entirely based on what transpired during official court 24 proceedings. (ECF No. 3 at 5-18.) In addition, this case is malicious under

1915(d)-(e) because, as noted supra at 1 n.1, it is duplicative of three other pending cases 26 Plaintiff filed. See Cato v. United States,

, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting 27 “[t]here is no abuse of discretion where a district court dismisses under § 1915(d) a 28 complaint ‘that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.’”) (citation omitted). 1 In sum, the Court will accept the R&R and dismiss this case with prejudice because 2 amendment would be futile. See id. at 1111 (affirming dismissal with prejudice where 3 amendment would have been futile). 4 V. CONCLUSION 5 The Court notes that Plaintiff made several arguments and cited to several cases 6 not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines 7 that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the issues before 8 the Court. 9 It is therefore ordered that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 10 Carla Baldwin (ECF No. 7) is accepted and adopted in full. 11 It is further ordered that the financial affidavit Judge Baldwin construed as Plaintiff’s 12 IFP application (ECF No. 4) is granted. 13 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 8) is overruled. 14 It is further ordered that that this case is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice. 15 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 16 DATED THIS 2nd day of April 2020.

17

18 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28