Williams v. Eighth Judicial District Court et al

Filing 3

ORDER that the Clerk directed to file the petition; petition is dismissed without prejudice; Clerk to enter final judgment; Clerk to provide petitioner (2) copies of a noncapital Section 2254 petition form, instructions, a pauper application and a co py of the papers he filed in this action (mailed to p on 01/26/2018); petitioner's application for IFP ECF No. 1 and request for judicial notice ECF No. 1 -2 are denied as moot. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/25/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

MICHAEL LEON WILLIAMS,

10
11
12
13
14
15

Petitioner,
v.

18

ORDER

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK;
JACKIE GLASS, DISTRICT JUDGE; THE
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA;
JUSTICE PARAGUIRRE; JUSTICE
DOUGLAS; and JUSTICE PICKERING,
Respondents.

16
17

Case No. 3:18-cv-00042-MMD-WGC

This action comes before the Court on petitioner’s application (ECF No. 1) to
proceed in forma pauperis and for initial screening review.

19

Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1615

20

directed at various courts and judicial officers of the State of Nevada. (ECF No. 1-1). The

21

petition alleges, essentially, that petitioner is in custody pursuant to an invalid judgment

22

of conviction entered in state court Case No. C226809. The petition is subject to dismissal

23

for lack of jurisdiction.

24

Petitioner may not proceed in federal court against either the Supreme Court of

25

Nevada or the Eighth Judicial District Court, as arms of the state, due to the state

26

sovereign immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment. See, e.g., Pennhurst State

27

School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-01 (1984) (a State may not be sued in

28

federal court regardless of the relief sought); O’Connor v. State of Nevada, 686 F.2d 749

1

(9th Cir. 1982) (Supreme Court of Nevada). Moreover, to the extent that petitioner seeks

2

a writ of mandamus from this lower federal court directed to the Supreme Court of

3

Nevada, the Eighth Judicial District Court, or its officers, he impermissibly seeks to have

4

this Court exercise an appellate jurisdiction over the state supreme court that it does not

5

have. Federal district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over a state supreme court

6

or other state court, whether by direct appeal, mandamus, or otherwise. See, e.g., Rooker

7

v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th

8

Cir. 2003). While the jurisdictional limitation recognized in Rooker does not function as a

9

rule of claim or issue preclusion, it does preclude a party from seeking the relief sought

10

here—an order from a lower federal court directing a state supreme court how to proceed

11

in its cases. If petitioner wants a federal court to issue directives to the Supreme Court of

12

Nevada, he must seek such relief in the United States Supreme Court. Finally, petitioner

13

invokes the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, as the basis for the court’s jurisdiction, but it

14

is well established that the All Writs Act does not provide an independent basis for federal

15

jurisdiction. See, e.g., Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. V. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33 (1998).

16

To the extent petitioner invokes the Court’s jurisdiction on the basis of state statutes and

17

the state Constitution, such do not apply in a federal court mandamus action.

18

In addition, to the extent that petitioner is seeking to challenge his judgment of

19

conviction other than through a habeas petition, the civil action is barred under Heck v.

20

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Petitioner cannot bring a civil action that necessarily

21

challenges the validity of his confinement without first establishing the invalidity of the

22

confinement via a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Cf. Erlin v. United States, 364 F.3d

23

1127 (9th Cir. 2004) (federal inmate could not bring Federal Torts Claim Act action for

24

negligent calculation of his release date without first establishing a right to release through

25

a habeas petition).

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

The petition for writ of mandamus will therefore be dismissed without prejudice.1

2

It is therefore ordered that the Clerk of the Court will file the petition and that the

3

petition will be dismissed without prejudice to the possible pursuit of a different procedural

4

vehicle in a new civil action. The Clerk of the Court will enter final judgment accordingly.

5

The Clerk further will provide petitioner two (2) copies of a noncapital Section 2254

6

petition form along with one copy of the instructions for the form, a pauper application,

7

and a copy of the papers that he filed in this action.

8
9

It is further ordered that petitioner’s application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 1) and request for judicial notice (ECF No. 1-2) are denied as moot.

10
11

DATED THIS 25th day of January 2018.

12
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1It

does not appear that a dismissal of the present action without prejudice would
materially impact the analysis of any timeliness issue, successive-petition issue, or other
issues if petitioner subsequently were to file a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus
promptly in a new action.

3