Opinion
3:21-cv-00382-MMD-WGC
01-20-2022
PRESCOTT H. RATHBORNE, Plaintiff, v. BRENDA JONES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. SUMMARY
Pro se Plaintiff Prescott H. Rathborne brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 27.) Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3), recommending the Court grant Rathborne's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1), and dismiss the case with prejudice. Rathborne filed a letter to the Court, which the Court construes as an objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 4 (“Objection”).) Because the Court agrees with Judge Cobb's screening analysis of Rathborne's complaint, the Court will adopt the R&R in its entirety.
II. BACKGROUND
Rathborne asserts claims against Christopher Nepper (the Mineral County Clerk/Treasurer), Randy Adams (Mineral County Sheriff), Shaun Rowe (Mineral County District Attorney), Brenda Jones (“Chief Deputy”), and Mineral County. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2.) Rathborne alleges that property he owns in Mineral County is subject to a certified land patent. (Id. at 4.) Rathborne further alleges that Defendants are attempting to auction off his land, despite the land patent. (Id.) He seeks damages for the time and expense it has taken to prevent his land from being unlawfully sold. (Id.) Rathborne claims the Court has jurisdiction over this matter because the land patents were issued pursuant to the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo. (Id. at 3.)
III. LEGAL STANDARD
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, then the Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id.
IV. DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter the Court agrees with Judge Cobb's determination that Rathborne has shown he cannot pay the filing fee. Rathborne's application to proceed in forma pauperis is therefore granted. The Court now turns to whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Judge Cobb concluded that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims in Rathborne's complaint. (ECF No. 3 at 3.) Despite the allegation that Rathborne's land is subject to a land patent, Judge Cobb reasoned that Rathborne does not state any federal law that has been violated. (Id.) Because the Ninth Circuit has squarely held that land patents do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction, Judge Cobb recommends the case be dismissed with prejudice. See Virgin v. Cnty. of San Louis Obispo, 201 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2000).
Nothing in Rathborne's Objection clarifies which rights he believes Defendants violated or which federal laws are in question. Instead, Rathborne levels personal attacks at Judge Cobb and opines on various unrelated matters. Despite the fact that Rathborne titles this document an objection, no objections to Judge Cobb's reasoning were articulated. Instead, Rathborne notes that “the urgency needed months ago to thwart Mineral County's theft have long since past.” (ECF No. 4 at 1.) Even applying de novo review, despite that Rathborne did not raise any objection to Judge Cobb's R&R, the Court is satisfied that Judge Cobb's conclusions are correct and the case should be dismissed with prejudice.
Rathborne did not file any request for emergency relief. Screening complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 can take several months. If Rathborne required expedited relief, he needed to alert the Court that his case was time sensitive.
V. CONCLUSION
The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the issues before the Court.
It is therefore ordered that Rathborne's objection (ECF No. 4) to the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb is overruled. The Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) is adopted in its entirety.
It is further ordered that Rathborne's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted.
The Clerk of Court is directed to file the complaint (ECF No. 1 -1).
It is further ordered that the complaint is dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.
The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.