Martinez v. Nevada Department of Corrections et al
Filing
2
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. This action shall be DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk of court shall enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 06/18/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
REDDY M. MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,
9
10
vs.
11
12
13
2:13-cv-01057-JCM-VCF
ORDER
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,,et al.,
Defendants.
14
15
This action comes before the court for initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
16
The papers presented are subject to multiple substantial defects.
17
Plaintiff Reddy Martinez has filed a motion and proposed order to transport him from
18
the Southern Desert Correctional Center to the state court courthouse for an unspecified
19
hearing at an undetermined date. In this action, Martinez did not either pay the $350.00 filing
20
fee for initiating a federal civil action or file pauper application. Nor has he submitted a
21
complaint, petition, or other pleading presenting claims. Nor does he have any other
22
proceedings pending in this court. In the state district court matter referenced in his motion,
23
he filed a civil rights complaint and pauper application on or about April 5, 2013.
24
Plaintiff perhaps mistakenly addressed the motion to the clerk of this court. However,
25
he did write in “United States” and strike out “Judicial” in the caption of his motion, to thus
26
read “United States District Court.”
27
Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff seeks relief from this court, his papers are wholly
28
deficient. Plaintiff may not initiate a federal civil action simply by filing a motion; he instead
1
must file a pleading asserting claims. He further must either pay the filing fee or submit a
2
properly-completed pauper application to properly commence a federal civil action.
3
Moreover, plaintiff may not initiate a civil action against the Nevada Department of
4
Corrections in federal court, regardless of the relief sought.1 Plaintiff’s arguendo claims for
5
relief against the state corrections department, as an arm of the state, are barred by the state
6
sovereign immunity recognized by the eleventh amendment. See, e.g., Taylor v. List, 880
7
F.2d 1040, 1045 (9 th Cir. 1989). State sovereign immunity bars suit in federal court against
8
a state or an arm of the state regardless of the relief sought. See, e.g., Pennhurst State
9
School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-01 (1984). State sovereign immunity limits
10
the jurisdiction of the federal courts and can be raised at any time during the judicial
11
proceedings either by the parties or by the court sua sponte. In re Jackson, 184 F.3d 1046,
12
1048 (9th Cir. 1999). To the extent that plaintiff arguendo also seeks to raise state law claims,
13
he may not pursue any claims, whether under federal or state law, against a state or an arm
14
of the state in federal court because of state sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Carey v. Nevada
15
Gaming Control Board, 279 F.3d 873, 878-78 (9th Cir. 2002); Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish,
16
382 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9 th Cir. 2004).
17
Furthermore, plaintiff’s boilerplate state form papers allege no viable jurisdictional basis
18
for this federal court to intervene in a pending proceeding in a co-sovereign state district court
19
to direct his presence at that court. If plaintiff wishes an order directing his presence at a
20
proceeding in the state district court, he perhaps should address his motion instead to that
21
court in the first instance. This court has no appellate or supervisory jurisdiction over the state
22
district court to issue orders directing what is to occur in that court.
23
24
This improperly-commenced action therefore will be dismissed without prejudice, as
no prejudice of substance could result from such a dismissal of the papers presented.
25
26
27
28
1
The clerk also docketed the state attorney general as a defendant. The court was unable to locate
in plaintiff’s papers where he also named the attorney general as a defendant, although his caption reads
“Nevada Dept. of Corrections, et al.” The action in all events is subject to dismissal on its face due to multiple
substantial defects, even with an arguendo presence of the attorney general as a defendant.
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this action shall be DISMISSED without
prejudice.
The clerk of court shall enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing this action without
prejudice.
DATED: June 18, 2013.
6
7
8
9
___________________________________
JAMES C. MAHAN
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?