# Steele v. Brown

> District Court, D. Nevada · December 13, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10779048

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Nevada
- **Decided:** December 13, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10779048

## Opinion text

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 * * *
Case No. 2:24-cv-2307-APG-EJY
4 ROBERT STEELE,

5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

6 v.

7 BRET BROWN, et al.,

8 Defendants.
9
10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and
11 Complaint. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. Plaintiff’s IFP application is complete; however, the Complaint fails
12 to state a plausible claim for relief. In fact, a review of the contents of Plaintiff’s Complaint
13 demonstrates he cannot possibly win relief. As explained in Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864
14 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988), the Court may dismiss a case sua sponte without further noticed to a
15 plaintiff under the circumstances presented here; that is “if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff
16 can prove no set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief.” Buckey v. Los
17 Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992). A complaint may also be dismissed as frivolous when
18 it is premised on a nonexistent legal theory. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-328 (1989). No
19 opportunity to amend is required when it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies
20 cannot be cured by amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
21 Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint consists of claims against the Nevada Esquire Mafia (ECF No.
22 1-1 at 4), and a rambling set of allegations apparently arising from a DUI arrest in which Plaintiff
23 states he tested positive for four times the state limit for Clonazepam and “.7 mg ml” over the state
24 limit for THC. Id. at 3, 5. The Court finds Plaintiff cannot possibly cure the deficiencies that
25 comprise his instant Complaint.

26
27
28
1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1)
2 be dismissed with prejudice and, therefore, his in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 1) be
3 DENIED.
4 Dated this 13th day of December, 2024.
5
_____________________________________
6
ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9 NOTICE
10 Under Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be in
11 writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court holds
12 that courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file
13 objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). The Ninth Circuit
14 holds that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time, and (2) failure to properly address
15 and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal
16 factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.
17 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10779048. Public record. Not legal advice.