1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 ROGER A. LIBBY, Case No. 3:24-cv-00539-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CITY OF CARSON, 9 Defendant. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Plaintiff Roger Libby, who is in the custody of the Nevada Department of 13 Corrections, sues the City of Carson under

for alleged constitution 14 violations arising from the Nevada Legislature’s enactment of certain criminal statutes 15 that led to his criminal conviction. (ECF No. 6 (“Complaint”).) Before the Court is the 16 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney 17 (ECF No. 24), recommending that the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice and 18 deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) as moot. Plaintiff filed an objection 19 (ECF No. 25 (“Objection”)), and Defendant filed a response and an errata (ECF Nos. 26, 20 27.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge and 21 will adopt the R&R in full. 22 II. DISCUSION 23 The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice 24 because Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief against Defendant and because Plaintiff’s 25 claims are barred by issue preclusion. (ECF No. 24 at 6-9.) The Court agrees the 26 Magistrate Judge but will only address the first ground because it is dispositive of 27 Plaintiff’s claims. 28 /// 1 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 2 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where, as here, 3 a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court is 4 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 5 recommendation] to which objection is made.”

The Court’s review is thus de novo 6 because Plaintiff filed his Objection.1 7 Before addressing the R&R, the Court will clarify an issue raised in the Objection 8 relating to screening Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing an 9 application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 1.) The Magistrate Judge 10 issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending denial of Plaintiff’s IPF application 11 based on the financial information provided. (ECF No. 3 at 2-3.) The Magistrate Judge 12 specifically indicated that “[o]nce Plaintiff pays the filing fee, the court will screen his 13 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.”2 (Id. at 3.) The Court adopted the Magistrate 14 Judge’s recommendation and denied Plaintiff’s IFP application. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff paid 15 the filing fee. (ECF No. 5.) The Clerk of Court then docketed Plaintiff’s Complaint and 16 issued summons. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) However, because Plaintiff is an inmate, as the 17 Magistrate Judge noted, the Court must screen his Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 18 “before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing.”3 28 19 20

21 1Plaintiff does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s summary of the factual allegations in the Complaint and the four claims for relief (ECF No. 24 at 3-6). The Court 22 adopts the Magistrate Judge’s summary of the factual allegations and will not repeat the 23 allegations and the claims in this order.

24 2Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which an incarcerated person seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of 25 a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a 26 claim upon which relief may be granted. See id. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 27 3Defendant points out the screening requirement in its motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 28 11 at 2-3.) In his Objection, Plaintiff contends that the case had been screened. (ECF No. 1 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Thus, the Magistrate Judge conducted this screening in the R&R. 2 (ECF No. 24.) 3 The Magistrate Judge correctly found that Plaintiff cannot state a claim against the 4 City of Carson for the Nevada Legislature’s conduct. (ECF No. 24 at 6-7.) Plaintiff does 5 not dispute that the City of Carson is a municipality. As such, the City of Carson “may not 6 be held liable under

, unless a policy, practice, or custom of the entity 7 can be shown to be a moving force behind a violation of constitutional rights.”4 Dougherty 8 v. City of Covina,

(9th Cir. 2011) (citing Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs. 9 of the City of N.Y.,

(1978)). However, Plaintiff seeks to hold the City of 10 Carson liable for alleged constitutional violations of the Nevada Legislature based on its 11 enactment of criminal statutes that led to Plaintiff’s conviction in Humboldt County, 12 Nevada. (ECF No. 24 at 6.) Plaintiff’s Objection focuses on the actions of the Nevada 13 Legislature, including its “final policy making authority to establish state law.” (ECF No. 14 25 at 4.) But that authority has nothing to do with the City of Carson. Even accepting 15 Plaintiff’s allegations as true, Plaintiff cannot legally state a claim against the City of 16 Carson for the Nevada Legislature’s legislative actions. The Court thus agrees with the 17 Magistrate Judge that the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because 18 amendment would be futile. 19 III. CONCLUSION 20 The Court notes that Plaintiff made several arguments and cited to several cases 21 not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and 22 determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the 23 issues before the Court. 24 25 4“In order to establish liability for governmental entities under Monell, a plaintiff 26 must prove ‘(1) that [the plaintiff] possessed a constitutional right of which he was 27 deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional right; and, (4) that the policy is the moving force 28 behind the constitutional violation.’” Dougherty,

(quoting Plumeau v. Sch. 1 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 2 || No. 24) is accepted and adopted in full. 3 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's objection (ECF No. 25) is overruled. 4 It is further ordered Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is denied as moot. 5 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and 6 || close this case. 7 DATED THIS 15" Day of December 2025. 8 9 10 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28