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