Goodrum v. State of Nevada et al
Filing
4
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3 ) is accepted and adopted in full. Plaintiff's IFP application (ECF No. 2 ), and his motion to move case, (ECF No. 1 -2), are DENIED AS MOOT; Clerk shall FILE th e complaint, (ECF No. 1 - 1); and, Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1 -1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 9/19/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
Case 3:22-cv-00216-ART-CLB Document 4 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
***
6
7
8
9
10
MITCHELL KEITH GOODRUM,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00216-ART-CLB
ORDER
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Defendants.
11
Pro se Plaintiff Mitchell Keith Goodrum (“Goodrum”) brings this action
12
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation
13
(“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin
14
(ECF No. 3), recommending Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
15
(ECF No. 2) and his motion to move case (ECF No. 1-1) be denied as moot, and
16
his complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to
17
amend. Plaintiff had until July 29, 2022 to file an objection. To date, no objection
18
to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court
19
adopts the R&R, denies as moot Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
20
pauperis and motion to move case, and dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without
21
prejudice and without leave to amend.
22
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
23
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where
24
a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not
25
required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of
26
an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v.
27
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the
28
magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one
Case 3:22-cv-00216-ART-CLB Document 4 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 3
1
or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis
2
in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that
3
the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
4
record in order to accept the recommendation.”).
5
Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review,
6
and is satisfied Magistrate Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Magistrate
7
Judge Baldwin recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1)
8
without prejudice and without leave to amend because Plaintiff is attempting to
9
contest the constitutionality of his conviction via a § 1983 action. (ECF No. 1-1).
10
As Magistrate Judge Baldwin notes, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges Defendants
11
violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights during his criminal case. (ECF No. 3 at
12
3). And, as Magistrate Judge Baldwin correctly concluded, Plaintiff’s only remedy
13
for these alleged violations is a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
14
because where “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily involve the
15
invalidity of his conviction or sentence” “the complaint must be dismissed unless
16
the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been
17
invalidated.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).
18
Here, a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in this action would involve the
19
invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and Plaintiff does not argue that the
20
conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Therefore, this Court agrees
21
with Judge Baldwin. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the
22
Court will adopt the R&R in full.
23
24
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baldwin’s Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 3) is accepted and adopted in full.
25
It IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
26
pauperis, (ECF No. 2), and his motion to move case, (ECF No. 1-2), be DENIED
27
AS MOOT;
28
2
Case 3:22-cv-00216-ART-CLB Document 4 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 3
1
2
3
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk FILE the complaint, (ECF No. 11); and,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1), be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
5
6
DATED THIS 19th Day of September 2022.
7
8
9
10
ANNE R. TRAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?