Dunn v. Nevada Supreme Court et al

Filing 4

ORDER that this action is DISMISSED, and Dunn's applications to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 1 , 3 ) are DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 4/18/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

John Michael Dunn,
2:17-cv-00921-JAD-VCF

5

Petitioner

6

v.

7

Nevada Supreme Court, et al.,

8

Order Denying as Moot Applications to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis and
Dismissing and Closing Case

Respondents

[ECF No. 1, 3]

9
John Michael Dunn has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a petition for a

10
11

writ of mandamus.1 Dunn seeks a “Federal Intervening Injunction” in his pending criminal

12

prosecution in Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court.2 I screen Dunn’s petition under the Prison

13

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA),3 dismiss this case, deny the IFP applications as moot, and direct the

14

Clerk to close this case.

15

Dunn asserts that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department launched a corrupt

16

investigation against him and that the state courts have turned a “blind eye” and shown preferential

17

treatment to the prosecuting attorney in his state criminal case. He attaches an “appeal” of his

18

Nevada state district court and Supreme Court cases, and he requests an injunction to “obtain

19

verification of” all warrants issued in his criminal case.4 According to the Eighth Judicial District

20

Court’s website, of which I take judicial notice, Dunn is currently facing 79 felony charges.5 His

21

trial is set to begin on June 1, 2017.

22
23
1

ECF No. 1.

2

ECF No. 3.

24
25
3

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

27

4

ECF No. 1-3 at 1; ECF No. 3 at 11.

28

5

https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=11492581.

26

Page 1 of 2

1

Under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Younger v. Harris, a federal court may

2

not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.6 Younger

3

abstention is appropriate when (1) state judicial proceedings are pending; (2) the state proceedings

4

involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise

5

the constitutional issue.7 Only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state

6

officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction have courts found federal

7

injunctive relief against pending state prosecutions appropriate.8 All of the requirements for Younger

8

abstention are present here, and Dunn has not shown that any extraordinary circumstances justify

9

federal court intervention in his pending state criminal prosecution.

10

Accordingly,

11

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED, and Dunn’s applications to

12

proceed in forma pauperis [ECF Nos. 1, 3] are DENIED as moot.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

14

Dated this 18th day of April, 2017.

15

_________________________________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

6

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971); Middlesex Cty Ethics Comm’n v. Garden State Bar
Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982).
7

26
27
28

Middlesex Cty, 457 U.S. at 432; Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th
Cir. 1994).
8

Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83–84 (9th Cir. 1980), cert denied, 449 U.S. 1014 (1980) (citing
Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971)).
Page 2 of 2