Crabtree v. Earnest
Crabtree v. Earnest
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 ZACKERY CRABTREE, Case No. 3:19-cv-00756-MMD-WGC
7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 MICHAEL VIETA KABELL, 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
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a 14 conspiracy to violate NRS § 453.3405 between the district attorney, judge, and defense 15 attorney involved in his criminal case—this case is focused on the district attorney and 16 defense counsel.1 (ECF No. 4.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation 17 (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF 18 No. 8), primarily recommending the Court dismiss this case with prejudice. Plaintiff filed 19 an objection to Judge Cobb’s Recommendation. (ECF No. 9.) As further explained below, 20 the Court will overrule Plaintiff’s objection because the Court agrees with Judge Cobb’s 21 analysis, will fully adopt the R&R, and dismiss this case. 22 II. BACKGROUND 23 As relevant to Plaintiff’s objection, Judge Cobb recommends dismissing this case, 24 with prejudice, because it is duplicative of Case No. 3:19-cv-00750-MMD-WGC (the “750 25 Case”). (ECF No. 8 at 1-2.) Plaintiff argues in his objection that Judge Cobb erred because 26 his R&R refers to Michael Kabell, but this case is against Jason Earnest. (ECF No. 9.) 27
28 1Plaintiff has filed four nearly identical cases. The other three are Case Nos. 3:19- 1 III. LEGAL STANDARD 2 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 3 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 4 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 5 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 6 recommendation] to which objection is made.”
Id.Because of Plaintiff’s objection to the 7 R&R, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of it, including the other documents filed 8 in this case. 9 IV. DISCUSSION 10 Following a de novo review of the R&R and the other records in this case, the Court 11 finds good cause to accept and adopt Judge Cobb’s R&R in full. The Court addresses 12 below Plaintiff’s objection. 13 Plaintiff’s objection is erroneous. Judge Cobb did not err in referring to Michael 14 Kabell in his R&R because in Plaintiff’s operative, amended complaint (ECF No. 4), 15 Plaintiff states he is suing Michael Kabell in the caption (Id. at 1). And which Defendant 16 Judge Cobb referred to in his R&R is immaterial anyway. This case is malicious under 28
17 U.S.C. § 1915(d)-(e) because, as Judge Cobb noted as to the 750 Case, and as noted 18 supra at 1 n.1, it is duplicative of three other pending cases Plaintiff filed. (ECF No. 8 at 1- 19 2.) See also Cato v. United States,
70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting “[t]here 20 is no abuse of discretion where a district court dismisses under § 1915(d) a complaint ‘that 21 merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.’”) (citation omitted). The Court will 22 dismiss this case for this reason. As this case is malicious, the Court will dismiss this case 23 with prejudice because amendment would be futile. See id. at 1111 (affirming dismissal 24 with prejudice where amendment would have been futile). 25 V. CONCLUSION 26 The Court notes that Plaintiff made several arguments and cited to several cases 27 not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines 28 1 that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the issues before 2 the Court. 3 It is therefore ordered that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 4 William G. Cobb (ECF No. 8) is accepted and adopted in full. 5 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 9) is overruled. 6 It is further ordered that that this case is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice. 7 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 8 DATED THIS 2nd day of April 2020.
9
10 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown