1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5 ERNCIE GALAVIZ, Case No. 2:25-cv-01417-JAD-NJK 6 Plaintiff ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 7 v. AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE 8 TRUMP, et al., 9 Defendants ECF Nos. 1, 3, 6 10 11 On 8/4/25, the magistrate judge entered this report and recommendation [ECF No. 3]: 12 13 District courts have the authority to dismiss cases sua sponte without notice when the 14 plaintiff “cannot possibly win relief.” Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co.,

, 638 (9th 15 Cir. 1988). A complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 16 granted “if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his 17 claims that would entitle him to relief.” Buckey v. Los Angeles,

, 794 (9th Cir. 1992). 18 A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous if it is premised on a nonexistent legal interest or 19 delusional factual scenario. Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). Moreover, “a 20 finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the 21 irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to 22 contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992). When a court dismisses a 23 complaint, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend with directions as to curing its deficiencies, 24 unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by 25 amendment. See Cato v. United States,

, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). “When a case may 26 be classified as frivolous or malicious, there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying action and 27 so no reason to grant leave to amend.” Lopez v. Smith,

, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) 28 (en banc). 1 After termination of related state and federal cases in California, Docket No. 1-1 at 9,! Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit bringing allegations concerning her loss of custody rights. Plaintiff alleges that Donald Trump, the Governor of California, Elon Musk, various state and federal agencies, and the courts have conspired to concoct a narrative that Plaintiff is mentally unwell and 5|| unable to care for her son. See, e.g., id. at 3-13.” Plaintiff alleges that Defendants manipulated the 6| child protective services system and altered her car GPS to take her to San Bernadino, California. 7| See, e.g., id. at 12-13. Plaintiff alleges that she cannot be mentally unwell given her special 8|| “power.” See, e.g., id. 7. Plaintiff seeks in relief the return of her son, the closing of unspecified 9] organizations to be replaced with other organizations, and to investigate and imprison those who 10] removed her son from her custody. See id. at 14. Plaintiff's complaint is delusional, fanciful, and 11] frivolous. 12 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED with 13]| prejudice. 14 Dated: August 4, 2025

Nancy J ~Koppe — 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 ORDER 19 Plaintiff Erncie Galaviz objects to the report and recommendation. ECF No. 6. She states that she is “a musician: world leader goddess” and that she is “an empath not crazy.” Id. 21] at 1-2. She says that she “would like [the court] to discontinue [her] case” because she wants “a 22 23 ' Plaintiffs related federal lawsuit against child protective services was dismissed on March 19, 2025. See K.K. v. San Bernadino County, Case No. EDCV 24-0123-SRM (AGR), 24! Docket No. 41 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2025). 25 ? Plaintiff alleges that “I do not want to sound sick but I believe they want [her son’s] sperms or taking his sperms.” Docket No. 1-1 at 6. Plaintiff also alleges that the custody actions 26 were designed to be punishment because she gave “tips about the riot in Washington DC.” □□□ at 13. > There appear to be a host of other obstacles to Plaintiff proceeding with this case, but the Court need not address those issues in light of the recommendation made herein.

1} higher court to hear [her] statement.” /d. at 1. Having reviewed the report and recommendation 2|| de novo and considered Galaviz’s objections, I agree with the magistrate judge’s analysis and 3| find good cause to adopt the report and recommendation and overrule Galaviz’s objections. IT 4| IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF 5] No. 3] is ADOPTED in its entirety, Galaviz’s objections [ECF No. 6] are OVERRULED, 6| and THIS CASE IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the report and 7|| recommendation, which have not been cured by the objections. The application for leave to 8|| proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to 9] ENTER JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY and CLOSE THIS CASE. 10

12 mes 13 Dated: September 10, 2025 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28