1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 ERIC CHRISTIAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-01160-JAD-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 v.

10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 11 Defendant(s). 12 District courts have the authority to dismiss cases sua sponte without notice when the 13 plaintiff “cannot possibly win relief.” Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co.,

, 638 (9th 14 Cir. 1988). A complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 15 granted “if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his 16 claims that would entitle him to relief.” Buckey v. Los Angeles,

, 794 (9th Cir. 1992). 17 A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous if it is premised on a nonexistent legal interest or 18 delusional factual scenario. Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). Moreover, “a 19 finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the 20 irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to 21 contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992). When a court dismisses a 22 complaint, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend with directions as to curing its deficiencies, 23 unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by 24 amendment. See Cato v. United States,

(9th Cir. 1995). “When a case may 25 be classified as frivolous or malicious, there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying action and 26 so no reason to grant leave to amend.” Lopez v. Smith,

, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) 27 (en banc). 28 ] Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges that he was awarded “summary judgment” in his criminal prosecution in the Central District of California, Docket No. 4 at 4-5, as well as a “forfeited summary judgment” in a civil suit in this District, see

Plaintiff also raises numerous 4] other allegations, including related to a car replacement and tow, that a California state court ruling was actually an act of identity theft, that his criminal sentence was actually an injunction involving 6] a celebrity, that his jury trial in Nevada state court was a Miranda violation, that he is owed relief 7|| under the Nevada victim compensation fund, that local police “trashed” his intellectual property, and that Black Doll Inc. falsified documents to defame him. See id. at 6-7. Based on these 9|| allegations, Plaintiff seeks $2,135,000,000 from the current United States Attorney for the District 10] of Nevada. See id. at 5. In light of the delusional factual scenario and nonexistent legal interest at 11] issue, Plaintiff's complaint is appropriately dismissed. 12 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED with 13] prejudice. 14 Dated: September 4, 2024 15 wi Nancy J. Koppe \, 16 United StatesMagistrate Judge 17 18 NOTICE 19 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 20] to this case pursuant to

(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and 21|| recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen 22\| days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file 23] a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 24] F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 26 27 28