Summary
This screening order from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada addresses a pro se plaintiff’s complaint and in forma pauperis application. The court denies the IFP application due to discrepancies in the plaintiff’s legal name and refusal to provide a vehicle registration, noting the use of sovereign citizen terminology. After reviewing the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court dismisses multiple claims without prejudice, finding they lack a private right of action, are barred by judicial or quasi-judicial immunity, or fail to plausibly allege constitutional violations. The court grants the plaintiff one opportunity to file an amended complaint that corrects these procedural and substantive deficiencies.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §1915(a).
- Whether plaintiff’s complaint states a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. §1915(e).
- Whether the asserted claims possess a private right of action.
- Whether the named social‑worker defendants are entitled to absolute immunity.
- Whether plaintiff’s §1983 claims are viable against the municipal defendants.
Holdings
- Plaintiff’s most recent long‑form IFP application supersedes earlier filings; the court denies the prisoner‑form IFP and requires a transparent IFP with a current vehicle registration before proceeding.
- The complaint fails to state a plausible claim and is dismissed without prejudice; plaintiff may amend to cure deficiencies.
- Claims based on criminal statutes (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§241, 242, 2381, etc.) do not provide a private right of action and are dismissed.
- Social workers performing quasi‑prosecutorial functions in child‑dependency proceedings are absolutely immune; their claims are dismissed.
- Plaintiff’s §1983 claims are dismissed for lack of specific factual allegations linking defendants to a policy or custom; plaintiff may amend to allege such facts.
Key quotations
“The Court finds that the more recent long form filing supersedes her previous filing and denies her IFP application on the prisoner form.” (5)
“A complaint is frivolous if it is based on a nonexistent legal interest or delusional factual scenario.” (12)
Factual background
Pro se plaintiff U’nika Yahral alleges civil‑rights violations, child‑custody related harms, and a $475,000,000 claim, but provides vague factual allegations, uses sovereign‑citizen terminology, refuses to supply a vehicle registration, and fails to identify specific defendants’ conduct.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed pro se complaint and multiple IFP applications. Court denied earlier IFPs, required long‑form filing, denied the prisoner‑form IFP, and ordered dismissal of the complaint without prejudice pending amendment.
Remand instructions
Plaintiff must file an amended complaint and a new IFP application by September 3, 2025; failure may result in dismissal with prejudice.