1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 JANELL LYNN KHAMVONGSA, Case No. 2:25-cv-01085-RFB-NJK 8 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 v.

10 CASSIDY LAW FIRM, et al., 11 Defendants. 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 alleges that Brenda Sebring opened her mail in Pennsylvania and that Cassidy 2|| Law Group violated several of her civil rights. Docket No. 1-1 at 3-5. Plaintiff submits that she 3] is without a phone due to a “person[’s] control,” that her email addresses are compromised, and 4] that she is not permitted a phone or W1-Fi access. /d. at 1-2. Plaintiff also alludes to an eviction 5] and alleges that she was forced to take medication. /d. at 4. Plaintiff requests DNA testing of all 6| the adults around Plaintiff, including the friends of her deceased grandparents, to verify “exact 7| parental status” to resolve Plaintiff's “delusional thinking,” and to pull “all filings by Cassidy Law 8 Group.” Jd. at 3, 6. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff seeks $2,000,000 for each filing, 9|| $2,000,000 for each trust and guardianship filing, and a “proper” criminal litigation. Jd. at 6. In 10] light of the delusional factual scenario and nonexistent legal interest at issue, Plaintiff's complaint 11] is appropriately dismissed. 12 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED with prejudice. Further, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Docket No. 1. 14 Dated: June 25, 2025 15 Kh Kon Nancy JAKoppe 16 United States Magistrate 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 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