Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00402/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00402-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Justin Sloan Medved, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Midwest Check Cashing Inc., MM Finance, 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

No. CV 16-00402-PHX-DMF

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) on February 2, 2016, as well as an Application 

to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2), a Motion to 

Allow Electronic Filing by a Party Appearing Without an Attorney (Doc. 4), and a 

Motion to Serve Summons and Waive the Costs of Serving (Doc. 6). The Court must 

undertake a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether or not this 

case is properly in federal court. The review leads to the conclusion that the claims 

asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint are not plausible and cannot be maintained under any 

theory of law. This Report and Recommendation is addressed to the Presiding Judge of 

the Phoenix Division because although this case was assigned to the undersigned judge 

pursuant to Local Rules of this Court, the undersigned, as a Magistrate Judge, does not 

have the judicial authority to enter a dispositive order absent the consent of the parties. 

 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint bringing claims against Midwest 

Case 2:16-cv-00402-DMF Document 8 Filed 04/13/16 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Check Cashing, Inc., and MM Finance, LLC. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants 

are entities “started in part by Michael Patrick Medved.” (Doc. 1 at 3-4.) The Complaint 

is largely incoherent, but suggests that Plaintiff believes family members conspired 

against him in bringing a mental health court petition and in stealing Plaintiff’s property 

“for the sake of the defendant’s false community standing.” (Doc. 1 at 25.) Plaintiff 

alleges that Defendants have conspired “as an illegal campaign against plaintiff that has 

resulted in a large amount of negative attention directed at plaintiff from the community.” 

(Doc. 1 at 30–31.) Plaintiff also alleges that he was falsely imprisoned by a court-ordered 

involuntarily confinement to hospital treatment. (Doc. 1 at 32.) Since September 11, 

2014, Plaintiff has filed over 20 separate complaints in the District of Arizona that 

primarily center on an alleged conspiracy to humiliate Plaintiff by family members. (See, 

e.g., Medved v. Medved, No. CV 15-1289-PHX-SPL, Doc. 1, Compl.; Medved v. Arc 

Entm’t, LLC, No. CV 14-2236-BSB, Doc. 1, Compl.) 

 The few intelligible facts alleged against Defendants are not “plausibly suggestive 

of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief” and do not “raise a reasonable expectation that 

discovery will reveal evidence” of a claim. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

556 (2007); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Because the 

Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous and amendment is futile, the Court 

recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) be 

dismissed without leave to amend. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motions (Docs. 2, 4, 6) be 

denied as moot. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 

Case 2:16-cv-00402-DMF Document 8 Filed 04/13/16 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may 

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without 

further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will 

be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an 

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Dated this 13th day of April, 2016. 

Honorable Deborah M. Fine

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: SRB 

Case 2:16-cv-00402-DMF Document 8 Filed 04/13/16 Page 3 of 3