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)

Download PDF
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

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?