Peterson v. Sobel

Filing 5

ORDER denying 4 Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 7/23/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
______________________________________
)
)
STANLEY T. PETERSON,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
J. SOBEL et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 3:13-cv-00550-RCJ-VPC
ORDER

12
13

Petitioner applied for a writ of prohibition requiring the Clerk of the Nevada Supreme

14

Court to accept his filings without paying the filing fee. The Court dismissed for lack of subject

15

matter jurisdiction. Petitioner has asked the Court to reconsider but has identified no intervening

16

authority that would give this Court jurisdiction to provide the relief he seeks.

17

The Court will address each of Petitioner’s arguments. First, a court filing fee has

18

nothing to do with voting and is therefore not an unconstitutional “poll tax.” Second, a filing fee

19

does not violate the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

20

See, e.g., Murray v. Dosal, 150 F.3d 814, 817 (8th Cir. 1998). Third, Petitioner may not

21

privately enforce the criminal statutes he claims are being violated. Fourth, in the alternative,

22

Petitioner asks for a writ of mandamus as opposed to a writ of prohibition. The title of the writ is

23
24
1 of 2

1

unimportant. This Court has no jurisdiction to mandate action by the Clerk of the Nevada

2

Supreme Court.
CONCLUSION

3
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 4) is DENIED.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated this 23rd day June, 2014.
Dated this 17th day of of July, 2014.

7
8

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 of 2