Mayfield v. State of Nevada

Filing 4

ORDER that 2 Application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and that this action shall be DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 3 Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of ap pealability is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall send petitioner two copies of application and 2254 habeas petition, one copy of instructions for each form, and a copy of the papers that she submitted in this action. Clerk of Court shall enter judgment. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/11/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: forms to petitioner - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8

JENNIFER R. MAYFIELD,
9
Petitioner,

2:13-cv-01660-GMN-CWH

10
vs.
11
ORDER
12

STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15
16

Petitioner has submitted an application (#2) to proceed in forma pauperis, a Notice of Appeal
(#1) and a motion for appointment of counsel (#3).

17

The matter has not been properly commenced because the pauper application does not include

18

a signed verification and because the “Notice of Appeal” is inadequate to identify the matter she wishes

19

to appeal or to allow the Court understand the nature of the claims she may have.

20

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1257, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review certain state court

21

decisions. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the lower federal courts do not have this authority. See

22

Dist. of Columbia, Crt. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 103 S.Ct. 1303 (1983); Rooker v.

23

Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416, 44 S.Ct. 149 (1923). The federal district court does have

24

jurisdiction to hear claims arising from a state court criminal proceeding or conviction under 28 U.S.C.

25

§ 2254, which provides that the federal court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus from

26

a state prisoner who claims that their conviction or sentence violates the “Constitution or laws or

27

treaties of the United States.” Id.

28

The documents before the Court offer no suggestion of the nature of the claims petitioner wishes

1

to bring or the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. Because of these deficiencies, the pauper application

2

therefore will be denied, and the present action will be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a

3

new action with a complete and verified pauper application and a proper petition setting forth the nature

4

of petitioner’s claims related to her state court criminal conviction or sentence.

5
6

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the application (#2) to proceed in forma pauperis is
DENIED and that this action shall be DISMISSED without prejudice.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel (#3) is DENIED.

8

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED, as jurists of reason

9

would not find the Court’s dismissal of this improperly commenced action without prejudice to be

10

debatable or incorrect.

11

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall send petitioner two copies each of an

12

application form to proceed in forma pauperis for incarcerated persons and a noncapital Section 2254

13

habeas petition form, one copy of the instructions for each form, and a copy of the papers that he

14

submitted in this action.

15
16
17

The Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment accordingly in favor of respondents and against
petitioner, dismissing this action without prejudice.
DATED: October 11, 2013

18
19
20

__________________________________
GLORIA M. NAVARRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-