2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JORDAN ZITO, Case No. 3:25-CV-00024-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 STATE OF NEVADA, et al,, 9 Defendants. 10

11 I. INTRODUCTION 12 Pro se Plaintiff Jordan Zito sued the State of Nevada, the Department of Health 13 and Human Services, the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services, Mark Amodei in 14 his official and personal capacity, Catherine Cortez Masto, Jacky Rosen in her official and 15 personal capacity, the Department of Taxation, and Raley’s Supermarkets, and now 16 objects (ECF No. 7 (“Objection”)) to United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin’s 17 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6 (“R&R”)), recommending that the Court grant 18 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4), file his complaint (ECF 19 No. 1-1 (“Complaint”)), dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, deny his “discovery 20 disqualification” motion (ECF No. 5) as moot, and close this case. As further explained 21 below, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s Objection, and adopts the R&R in full. 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 24 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 25 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court is required 26 to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] 27 /// 28 /// 2 his Objection.1 3 Judge Baldwin first recommends granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 4 pauperis. (ECF No. 6 at 1-2.) The Court will accept the recommendation without further 5 review because Plaintiff received the intended outcome of his application and did not 6 explicitly object to its granting. 7 Judge Baldwin then screens Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Id. at 3-4.) He seeks in part: 8 I am seeking to Instruct the Legislature for corrections, and to Petition this redress of grievance; which I thought had already been settled, but 9 apparently needs to be redressed according to common law; because I have been defrauded, which is crime, and to recover costs, damages, and 10 what would be reasonable attorney fees, as well as administer law and 11 equity, in various types of relief, as i consider this Involuntary Servitude and Slavery, especially in regards to the House of Representatives, and the 12 incoming “President of the United States”. I don’t want to go backwards, I don’t want to repeat. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3.) 13

14 Judge Baldwin recommends the Complaint be dismissed because, even 15 construing these allegations liberally, “the Court cannot conceive or construe any specific 16 set of circumstances under which these conclusory statements would give rise to any 17 federal constitutional or statutory right.” (ECF No. 6 at 4.) The Court agrees. 18 A court may dismiss a plaintiff’s complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which 19 relief can be granted.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). A properly pled complaint must provide “a 20 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

at 21 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). While Rule 8 does not 22 require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than “labels and conclusions” or a 23 “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

, 24 678 (2009) (citing Twombly,

.) “Factual allegations must be enough to rise 25 above the speculative level.” Twombly,

. Particular care is taken in 26

27 1Plaintiff objects to the entire R&R. (ECF No. 7 at 14.) However, Plaintiff’s Objection is largely unintelligible, so it is unclear to the Court what Plaintiff specifically 28 objects to and the reasoning behind said objections. The Court will accordingly review the 2 not represented by counsel. See Hebbe v. Pliler,

(9th Cir. 2010). A 3 liberal construction may not be used to supply an essential element of the claim not 4 initially pled. See Pena v. Gardner,

(9th Cir. 1992). 5 Plaintiff appears to allege fraud against the State of Nevada (and various actors of 6 the State) and Raley’s Supermarkets, but it is not readily apparent in what capacity. For 7 example, he seems to allege fraud against the State based on a caseworker in the 8 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program using an incorrect date and therefore 9 “create[ing] a false record,” and against Raley’s Supermarkets for soliciting bottle deposits 10 and listing the wrong name of a purchased beverage on a receipt. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3, 7, 11 8.) The Court cannot see how these actions connect to an allegation of fraud. 12 Plaintiff also claims relief under the First, Seventh, and Tenth Amendments (Id. at 13 1-2), but it is unclear how these Amendments relate to his alleged harms such that they 14 would provide relief. Moreover, he reiterates in the Objection that the relief he seeks is 15 “[t]o instruct the Legislature for corrections,” “[t]o have an enforcement mechanism for 16 Waiver of Preliminary Agreement,” and “to recover damages.” (ECF No. 7 at 1.) However, 17 he does not explain how this relief comes from his cited causes of action. 18 Even construing these allegations together and liberally, the Complaint is largely 19 incomprehensible. It is unclear precisely what harm occurred to Plaintiff, how that harm 20 connects to a cause of action, and how relief may be granted on his claims. Judge Baldwin 21 is therefore correct in her determination that Plaintiff does not state a claim upon which 22 relief may be granted, so this action must be dismissed. Leave to amend is inappropriate 23 here because the issues identified by the Court cannot be cured by amendment. See 24 Cato v. United States,

(9th Cir. 1995). 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 7) to Judge Baldwin’s 27 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) is overruled. 28 It is further ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 1 || 6) is adopted in full. 2 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis is (ECF 3 || No. 4) granted. 4 It is further othered that the Clerk of Court file the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 5 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed with 6 || prejudice. 7 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's “discovery disqualification” motion (ECF No. 5) 8 || is denied as moot. 9 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 10 DATED THIS 26! Day of February 2025.

12 □ MIRANDA M. DU 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28