1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 KENNETH IMHOTEP VAUGHN BEY, 6 Case No. 2:21-cv-01841-APG-NJK Plaintiff, 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v. 8 OCAMPO ANNA LIZA, 9 Defendant. 10 11 District courts have the authority to dismiss cases sua sponte without notice to the plaintiff 12 when he “cannot possibly win relief.” Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co.,

, 638 (9th 13 Cir. 1988).1 A complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may 14 be granted “if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his 15 claims that would entitle him to relief.” Buckey v. Los Angeles,

, 794 (9th Cir. 1992). 16 A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous if it is premised on a nonexistent legal interest or 17 delusional factual scenario. Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). Moreover, “a 18 finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the 19 irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to 20 contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992). When a court dismisses a 21 complaint, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend with directions as to curing its deficiencies, 22 unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by 23 amendment. See Cato v. United States,

(9th Cir. 1995). 24 25

26 1 When a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, courts screen the complaint to ensure that a claim for relief has been stated.

(e). Here, Plaintiff filed an application to 27 proceed in forma pauperis. See Docket No. 1. Given the Court’s separate ability to dismiss the complaint pursuant to the authority cited above, however, the Court need not address whether 28 Plaintiff qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis before dismissing his case. ] Plaintiff's complaint cannot possibly state a claim here. His allegations consist of 2|| sovereign-citizen gibberish for which no there is no cognizable cause of action. The complaint is 3] properly characterized as frivolous and delusional. 4 Accordingly, in light of the frivolous and delusional nature of Plaintiff's complaint, the 5] undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED with prejudice. 6 This is one of only many findings of this nature for Plaintiff. On June 17, 2021, United 7| States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah found another of Plaintiff's cases to be frivolous and delusional. Bey v. Williamson, No. 2:21-cv-00627-RFB-EJY, Docket No. 9 (D. Nev. June 17, 9] 2021) (report and recommendation). Further, on August 20, 2021, United States District Judge 10] Gloria M. Navarro adopted this Court’s recommendation in another of Plaintiff's cases and 11] dismissed it as frivolous and delusional. Bey v. Phillips, No. 2:21-cv-01455-GMN-NJK, Docket 12] No. 4 (D. Nev. August 20, 2021); Docket No. 3 (D. Nev. August 5, 2021) (report and 13] recommendation).” Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that continuing to file frivolous lawsuits may result 14] in adverse consequences, including a finding that he is a vexatious litigant. 15 Dated: October 6, 2021 he. Nancy\J. Koppe 17 United Statés Magistrate Judge 18 19 NOTICE 20 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to

(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and 22|| recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file 24|| a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

(9th Cir. 1991). 26) ———______ ? Plaintiff has had numerous other cases in this Court dismissed as frivolous and delusional. 27| See, e.g., Bey v. Fagan, No. 2:21-cv-01461-APG-EJY, Docket No. 4 (D. Nev. September 13, 2021); Bey v. Isler, No. 2:21-cv-01458-GMN-BNW, Docket No. 5 (D. Nev. August 26, 2021); 28] Bey v. Evenden, No. 2:21-cv-01460-JAD-NJK, Docket No. 4 (D. Nev. August 23, 2021).