1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 MARIE ENCAR ARNOLD, Case No. 2:24-cv-01856-___-NJK1 8 Plaintiff(s), REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 v.

10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 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 1 This case was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to General Order 26 2023-11. See Docket No. 3. At this stage, Defendants have not appeared, so the undersigned lacks the authority to order dispositive relief. See General Order 2023-11 at 3 (“All matters that arise in 27 a case before the deadline by which consent must be declined are deemed referred to the Magistrate Judge under

(b)”). Accordingly, a district judge must be assigned to the case to 28 address this report and recommendation. 1|| be classified as frivolous or malicious, there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying action and 2|| so no reason to grant leave to amend.” Lopez v. Smith,

, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) 3} (en banc). 4 Plaintiff’s complaint is difficult to follow. The factual allegations indicate that she is a 5|| law-abiding person, but has been subject to government mistreatment. The complaint alleges that, inter alia, there is “no reason to attack memory chips of uploads of pain and suffering surgical 7|| medical procedures,” Docket No. 1-1 at 5, that the government “intentionally committed frivolous 8] upload of fake bad smells,”

and that the “‘One voice programs’ illegally feed words into our 9) mouths. Mind abductions and combining you with people ‘you don’t get along with,’” id. at 6. 10]| Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $2,700,000. See id. at 12. Plaintiff also seeks relief in 11] the form of “[s]eparat[ion] of minds” and abolition of “‘anti-race social group and anti-gender, anti- 12} jealous.” Jd. In light of the delusional factual scenario and nonexistent legal interest at issue, 13} Plaintiff's complaint is appropriately dismissed. 14 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED with 15} prejudice. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to remove this case from the consent program 16] and to assign a United States District Judge to the case. 17 Dated: December 10, 2024 18 oo Nancy J. Koppe 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 NOTICE 22 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned this case pursuant to

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