Warren v. Jenkins

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * TINIKA SE’CAL WARREN, Case No. 2:25-cv-01713-JCM-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. AND JAY WAYNE JENKINS aka Young Jeezy; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DRAI’S BEACH CLUB AND NIGHTCLUB; LABEL CTE WORLD CORPORATE THUGS ENTERTAINMENT, Defendants.

11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and Complaint (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1). Although the IFP is complete and granted, the Court exercises its inherent authority to sua sponte screen cases that are “transparently defective” in order to “save everyone time and legal expense.” Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 2003). Sua sponte dismissal is appropriate where claims lack legal plausibility, and “it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [her] claim which would entitle [her] to relief.”

17 Buckey v. County of Los Angeles, F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citation omitted).

18 Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint is a series of allegations regarding events that simply make no sense, fails to identify a cogent cause of action, and are unconnected to Las Vegas. ECF No. 1-1 at 3-6. In sum, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint is properly dismissed as frivolous as it is premised on nonexistent legal interests and delusional factual scenarios. Id.; Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S 319, 327-38 (1989).

23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED.

25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be filed on the docket and shown as dismissed.

1 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be dismissed with prejudice.

3 Dated this 15th day of September, 2025.

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 NOTICE 9 Under Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court holds the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). The Ninth Circuit also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).