Christian v. United States

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Eric Leon Christian, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00842-CDS-BNW 5 Plaintiff Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Denying Motion 6 v. Regarding Notice of Forfeiture United States of America, [ECF Nos. 13, 16] 8 Defendant 10 United States Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler entered a report and recommendation (R&R) on June 10, 2024. ECF No. 13. In the R&R, she recommends that plaintiff Eric Leon Christian’s numerous pending motions for relief be denied without prejudice because Christian has not yet filed a complaint therefore his motions (citing Demand for Judgment, ECF No. 5; Ex Parte Emergency Habeas Appeal, ECF No. 7; Emergency Motion for Ex Parte Writ of Attachment Ruling, ECF No. 9; Demand for Judgment, ECF No. 12) are premature. Id. Judge Weksler further ordered Christian to file a complaint within 30 days and instructed that, to the extent he intends to assert a habeas claim, he fill out and submit the correct form. Id. 18 The deadline for Christian to object to the R&R was June 26, 2024. Id. at 1-2; see also Local Rule IB 3-2(a) (giving a party who wishes to file objections to an R&R 14 days to do so).

20 Christian neither filed an objection nor asked to extend the deadline to do so. Based on Judge Weksler’s R&R, the deadline for filing a complaint was July 10, 2024. To date, no complaint has been filed. 1 On June 28, 2024, Christian filed a “Notice of Forfeiture Status Update” regarding separate criminal actions brought against him which appears to be in no way responsive to the R&R in this case (ECF No. 16) but is addressed further herein.

1 While review is not required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed,2 I nonetheless conducted a de novo review of the R&R pursuant to 28 3 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and agree with Judge Weksler’s recommendation. Commencing an action in federal court requires a plaintiff to file a complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“[a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court”); Garcia v. Nevada, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6 192412, *1–2 (D. Nev. Oct. 2, 2023), report and recommendation adopted by 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7 191693 (D. Nev. Oct. 23, 2023). Absent a complaint, the court cannot grant other forms of relief.

8 See, e.g., id.; Strouse v. USP-Marion Warden, 2020 WL 2063937, at *2 (S.D. Ill. April 29, 2020) (finding failure to file a complaint fatal to motion for injunctive relief). Thus, I affirm the recommendation to dismiss the pending motions without prejudice in the absence of an operative complaint.

12 Also pending before the court is a “Notice of Forfeiture Status Update,” which is docketed as a motion. ECF No. 16. Therein, Christian summarizes information related to other cases and asserts that the United States’ “going FORFEITURE must be made part of this case relief execution completion record.” Id. at 3. The court is unable to discern what relief Christian is seeking, and fatal to his motion, Christian fails to cite any points and authorities in support of his motion. “The failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support of the motion constitutes a consent to the denial of the motion”" LR 7-2(d); see also United States v. Johnson, 180 F. 19 Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (D. Nev. 2002) (denying motion under LR 7-2(d), in part, for failure to cite authority supporting argument). Accordingly, this motion is denied.

21 Conclusion 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 13] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED in its entirety so [ECF Nos. 5, 7, 9, and 12] are DENIED without prejudice.

2 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Christian’s motion for notice of forfeiture status 2|| update [ECF No. 16] is DENIED without prejudice.

3 Christian is reminded that this court issued an order to show cause requiring him to 4|| show cause, in writing, as why to why he should not be deemed a vexatious litigant and barred from initiating future actions without first obtaining permission from the chief judge of this 6]| court. See Order, ECF No. 17. The deadline to respond to the show-cause order is August 9, 7|| 2024. /, ) 8 Dated: July 19, 2024 LZ ‘ 10 Cristin . Silva .

Unite States District Judge ll