Cheatham v. Gillespie, et al

Filing 25

ORDER that 24 Plaintiff's Motion to Inform / Information is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 8/23/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

EMMANUEL CHEATHAM,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:14-cv-01166-APG-PAL
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

SCOTT, et al.,

(Mot. Inform/Information – ECF No. 24)
Defendants.

11
12

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Emmanuel Cheatham’s Motion to Inform /

13

Information (ECF No. 24). This Motion is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

14

§ 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice.

15

This is an action on a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Cheatham

16

is a prisoner proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. The court previously

17

screened the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) and determined that it stated a claim. See

18

Screening Order (ECF No. 8).

19

Defendants. In addition, the court recently denied his Motion to Dismiss Charges (ECF No. 18),

20

finding that this federal district court lacks jurisdiction to dismiss charges pending against Mr.

21

Cheatham in his state court criminal proceedings. See Order (ECF No. 22). The current Motion

22

(ECF No. 24) asks how long Mr. Cheatham has to bring criminal case # C295096 before this

23

court. The court rules a matters before it but cannot give litigants legal advice.

However, to date, Mr. Cheatham has not properly served

24

As a general matter, however, he is informed that federal district courts do not have

25

appellate jurisdiction over a state court, whether by direct appeal, mandamus, or otherwise. See,

26

e.g., Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895,

27

898 (9th Cir. 2003). This jurisdictional principle was explained in United States Supreme

28

Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck, the Supreme Court held
1

1

that a plaintiff cannot succeed on a § 1983 claim that necessarily implicates the constitutionality

2

of the plaintiff’s state conviction or sentence. 512 U.S. at 484–87. In other words, § 1983

3

cannot be used to indirectly attack a criminal conviction unless the conviction or sentence has

4

been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal

5

authorized to make such a determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of

6

a writ of habeas corpus. Id. As such, a plaintiff “may challenge the validity of his arrest,

7

prosecution, and conviction only by writ of habeas corpus.” Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951,

8

952 (9th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added). Additionally, the Younger abstention doctrine prevents

9

federal courts from interfering with pending state court criminal proceedings, even if there is an

10

allegation of a constitutional violation, unless there is an extraordinary circumstance that creates

11

a threat of irreparable injury. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53–54 (1971). The Supreme

12

Court has stated that “federal-court abstention is required” when there is “a parallel, pending

13

state criminal proceeding.” Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, --- U.S. ----, 134 S. Ct. 584, 588

14

(2013) (emphasis added); Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 981 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc)

15

(finding that Younger applies to damages claims as well as claims for injunctive or declaratory

16

relief).

17

Accordingly,

18

IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff Emmanuel Cheatham’s Motion to Inform / Information

19
20

(ECF No. 24) is DENIED.
Dated this 23rd day of August, 2016.

21
22
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2