1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Yousef Kadmiri, Case No. 2:25-cv-01514-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. & 8 Report and Recommendation MGM Grand Intl.; et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Yousef Kadmiri’s application to proceed in forma 13 pauperis (meaning, to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 12). However, 14 Plaintiff’s application contains rambling and nonsensical responses to the questions. Plaintiff’s 15 complaint (ECF No. 1-1) and multiple motions (ECF Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10) contain the same rambling, 16 nonsensical, and delusional allegations. Because Plaintiff’s action is delusional and frivolous, the 17 Court denies the application to proceed in forma pauperis, recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s 18 complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend, and recommends denying Plaintiff’s 19 pending motions as moot. 20 I. Discussion. 21 A. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 22 Under

(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 23 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 24 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The applicant’s affidavit must 25 state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with some particularity, definiteness and 26 certainty.” United States v. McQuade,

(9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). 27 Here, Plaintiff’s renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis contains rambling and 1 by stating that he is incarcerated at his home address. However, later Plaintiff states that he is 2 “effectively homeless and is residing with family…” In responding to question 3, which asks 3 Plaintiff to list sources of income, Plaintiff responds with a long narrative, including the sentence 4 “Plaintiff has been the target of systemic attacks orchestrated by mgm [sic] grand resort 5 international by and through a law enforcement handler his mother and sister, who act in concert 6 with certain enforcement personnel for improper financial gain.” Given Plaintiff’s nonsensical 7 answers, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status. So, 8 the Court denies Plaintiff’s application. 9 B. The Court recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint and denying Plaintiff’s motions. 10 11 Typically, the Court would provide Plaintiff leave to file a renewed application. But the 12 Court finds that doing so would be futile here. The Court has already given Plaintiff leave to file 13 a renewed application on two occasions. (ECF Nos. 3, 11). But even if Plaintiff were to file a 14 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, his complaint would not survive the Court’s 15 initial screening required by

. 16 Under

(e)(2)(B)(i), the District courts have the authority to dismiss cases 17 at any time if the action is frivolous. The Court may act on its own without notice to the plaintiff 18 when the plaintiff “cannot possibly win relief.” Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co.,

, 19 638 (9th Cir. 1998). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous if it is premised on a nonexistent 20 legal interest or delusional factual scenario. Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). 21 The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only dismiss them “if it appears beyond 22 doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to 23 relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan,

(9th Cir. 2014). 24 Here, even liberally construing Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds that the factual 25 allegations are nearly impossible to understand and describe factual and delusional scenarios that 26 do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff alleges that all the Defendants— 27 which include MGM Grand International, the Henderson Police Department, Zineb Kadmiri, 1 Leila Kadmiri, the Monrovia Police Department, the Alhambra Police Department, the San 2 Bernadino Police Department, and the San Bernadino Animal Shelter—are attempting to kill him 3 using a “parasitic biospecimen/micro-organisms…” (ECF No. 1-1 at 2). He asserts that 4 Defendants “are also utilizing a chemical compound in the form of white dust balls and a unique 5 and almost absolute almost [sic] impossible to detect gas…” (Id. at 2-3). Plaintiff claims that 6 Defendants are stalking him by helicopter and plane, surveilling him, and have kidnapped his cat. 7 (Id. at 10, 16, 23). The following sentence is exemplary of Plaintiff’s rambling and delusional 8 allegations: 9 The complexity of this murder plan is apparently complex beyond all imagination. The MGM grand didn’t like the lawsuit being filed 10 twice so issued a hit on me for telling the world my story the 45 million dollar lawsuit filed by smallman and ewing was with the 11 intent to kill me… [sic] Inevitably I will die I know this but please don’t let the little 10 year old girl die forgotten she died with a brain 12 eating amoeba for no reason just to get to me it’s unbelievable how 13 reckless they are proof further goes on still to this day my mother filed for a guardianship to essentially have the ability to keep me in 14 las vegas [sic] so that theyd [sic] kill me it was filed with numerous documents in which I was never served the same way my lawsuit in 15 Yousef Kadmiri Vs. Mgm Grand resorts INTL [sic] was filed not 16 served causing my case to be dismissed. 17 (Id. at 26). 18 Plaintiff cannot state a claim and the complaint is properly characterized as frivolous and 19 delusional. Plaintiff’s motions contain similar fanciful assertions. In three nearly identical 20 motions “for writ of prohibition,” Plaintiff claims that Defendants (who he calls “Respondents”) 21 have caused Plaintiff to suffer “serious medical harm, including congestive heart 22 failure…allegedly due to deliberate infection with parasitic organisms.” (ECF Nos. 6, 7, 9). In a 23 motion for protective order, Plaintiff repeats his assertions that he is being surveilled and harmed 24 with parasites, claims that Zineb and Leila Kadmiri are involved in the assaults through “non- 25 consensual injection of Ozempic into Yousef Kadmiri while he was asleep,” and asks the Court to 26 enjoin Defendants from harming him. (ECF No. 10). Given that Plaintiff’s complaint, 27 application to proceed in forma pauperis, and his motions all contain indecipherable and fantastic 1 claims, amendment would be futile. The Court thus recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s 2 complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend and denial of Plaintiff’s pending motions. 3 ORDER 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 5 pauperis (ECF No. 12) is denied. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff a copy 6 of this order and report and recommendation. 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 8 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be 9 dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend as delusional and frivolous. 10 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10) be 11 denied as moot. 12 NOTICE 13 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be 14 in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after service of this 15 Notice. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has 16 been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474

, 142 (1985) reh’g denied,

(1986). The Ninth Circuit has also held that 18 (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief 19 the objectionable issues could waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal 20 factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst,

(9th Cir. 21 1991); see Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983); see Miranda 22 v. Anchondo,

(9th Cir. 2012). 23 24 DATED: November 14, 2025 25 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27