Williams v. State of Nevada

Filing 13

ORDERED that Judge Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8 ) is ADOPTED. It is further ordered that Williams's complaint (ECF No. 5 ) is DISMISSED AS MOOT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. It is further ordered that W illiams's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4 ), motion to submit exhibit (ECF No. 6 ), motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 7 ), motion to subpoena accounting transactions (ECF No. 9 ), motion for leave to file amended preliminary injunction (ECF No. 10 ), and motion to keep exhibit A to add to amended civil complaint (ECF No. 11 ) are DENIED AS MOOT. It is further ordered that Williams's first amended complaint (ECF No. 12 ) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE . Williams may bring these claims in a new action if he wishes to proceed with these claims. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court ENTER JUDGMENT and CLOSE this case. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 9/24/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5
6
7
8

TERRANCE E. WILLIAMS,
v.

Case No. 3:23-CV-00581-ART-CLB

Plaintiff,

ORDER

STATE OF NEVADA, et.al.,
Defendants.

9
10
11

Plaintiff Terrance Williams (“Williams”) brings this action against

12

Defendants State of Nevada and Chief District Attorney Kelly Kossow

13

(“Defendants”) under U.S.C § 1983, alleging claims related to his pretrial

14

detention in the local jail since his arrest on August 29, 2023, and asserting that

15

he had not had a preliminary hearing at the time the complaint was filed on

16

December 1, 2023.

17

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF

18

No. 4), civil rights complaint, (ECF No. 5), motion to submit exhibit, (ECF No. 6),

19

and motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 7.) Magistrate Judge Carla L.

20

Baldwin

21

recommending that Williams’s complaint (ECF No. 5), be dismissed without

22

prejudice and without leave to amend, and that Williams’s in forma pauperis

23

application, (ECF No. 4), motion to submit exhibit, (ECF No. 6), and the motion

24

for preliminary injunction, (ECF No. 7), be denied as moot.

issued

a

Report

and

Recommendation

(“R&R”)

(ECF

No.

8),

25

Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a motion to subpoena accounting transactions

26

(ECF No. 9), motion for leave to file amended preliminary injunction (ECF No. 10),

27

and motion to keep exhibit A to add to amended civil complaint (ECF No. 11.)

28

Plaintiff also filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 12.)

1

1

For the reasons stated, the Court adopts Judge Baldwin’s R&R and orders

2

that Williams’s complaint (ECF No. 5) be dismissed without prejudice and without

3

leave to amend, and that Williams’s in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 4),

4

motion to submit exhibit (ECF No. 6), and the motion for preliminary injunction

5

(ECF No. 7) be denied as moot. Additionally, the Court denies as moot Williams’s

6

subsequent motions; his motion to subpoena accounting transactions (ECF No.

7

9), motion for leave to file amended preliminary injunction (ECF No. 10), and

8

motion to keep exhibit A to add to amended civil complaint (ECF No. 11.)
As to Plaintiff’s amended complaint, (ECF No. 12), the Court dismisses the

9
10
11

amended complaint without prejudice, as it must be filed in a new action.
I.

Review of Reports and Recommendations

12

Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a Court “may accept, reject, or modify,

13

in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by [a] magistrate

14

judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s

15

report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de

16

novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which

17

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A court is not required to conduct “any

18

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v.

19

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

20

II.

Analysis

21

A. Report & Recommendation

22

Here, Plaintiff did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, and the Court

23

is thus not required to conduct a review of the issues. In any case, the Court

24

agrees with Judge Baldwins report and recommendation with regards to the

25

screening of Plaintiff’s complaint. Under Younger, a federal court may not

26

interfere with pending state criminal proceedings, unless there is an

27

extraordinary circumstance creating a threat of irreparable injury. Younger v.

28

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Williams’s complaint regarding his pretrial detention

2

1

and denial of an attorney visit during said pretrial detention asked the Court to

2

intervene in ongoing state criminal proceedings. Thus, the Younger abstention

3

applies and a federal court may not intervene. 1

4

The Court also agrees with Judge Baldwin’s determination that Williams’s

5

claims against the State of Nevada are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign

6

immunity, and that Defendant Kelly Kossow is immune from § 1983 actions as a

7

District Attorney. See Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Co-op., 951 F.2d

8

1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal courts are barred by the Eleventh Amendment

9

from hearing suits brought against an unconsenting state); Imbler v. Pachtman,

10

424 U.S. 409, 427, 430 (1976) (a state prosecutor acting within the scope of

11

duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution is immune from liability

12

for damages under § 1983).
B. Plaintiff’s Complaint and Subsequent Motions are Moot

13
14

Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim regarding his pretrial

15

detention is moot because was eventually released from jail and acquitted after a

16

jury trial in state court. 2 A case is moot when it has “lost its character as a

17

present, live controversy of the kind that must exist if [the court is] to avoid

18

advisory opinions on abstract propositions of law.” Oregon v. FERC, 636 F.3d

19

1203, 1206 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam). The Court takes judicial notice of the fact

20

that Plaintiff had a preliminary hearing on January 3, 2024, and was released on

21

his own recognizance on that date. 3 As such, Williams’s complaint regarding his

22

pretrial detention and denial of an attorney visit during his detention is moot.
The Court will dismiss a complaint without leave to amend where

23
24
25
26
27
28

While there is an exception to Younger under Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103,
(1975), because the Court finds that Williams’s complaint is moot, the Court will
not analyze this exception.
2 The Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s acquittal in his state criminal
proceeding. See State vs. Terrance Eugene Williams, CR23-2159.
3 See State of Nevada vs. Terrance Eugene Williams, Case No. RCR2023-124389.
1

3

1

amendment would be futile. AE ex rel. Hernandez v. Cnty. of Tulare, 666 F.3d

2

631, 636 (9th Cir. 2012). A district court may deny a plaintiff leave to amend if it

3

determines that “allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading

4

could not possibly cure the deficiency,” Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv–Well

5

Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir.1986). Here, even if Williams

6

amended his complaint to allege additional facts, his claim would still be moot

7

because he had a preliminary hearing, was released from jail, and later acquitted.

8

Thus, any amendment to the complaint would be futile. As such, the Court

9

dismisses his complaint (ECF No. 5) without prejudice and without leave to

10

amend.

11

Accordingly, Williams’s in forma pauperis application, (ECF No. 4), motion

12

to submit exhibit, (ECF No. 6), motion for preliminary injunction, (ECF No. 7),

13

motion to subpoena accounting transactions (ECF No. 9), motion for leave to file

14

amended preliminary injunction (ECF No. 10), and motion to keep exhibit A to

15

add to amended civil complaint (ECF No. 11.), are also denied as moot.

16

C. New Claims in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Must be Filed in a

17

Separate Action

18

In his amended complaint (ECF No. 12), Plaintiff alleges Eighth

19

Amendment retaliation claims, and brings claims related to property, threats to

20

safety, and medical care. (Id.) Plaintiff pursues these claims against different

21

defendants than in his original complaint. (Id.)

22

Because the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to

23

dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, and Plaintiff’s amended complaint raises several

24

entirely new claims, these claims must be filed in a separate action if Plaintiff

25

wishes to pursue them.

26

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 12) is dismissed

27

without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue these claims, he will need to do so

28

in a new lawsuit.

4

1
2
3
4
5

III.

Conclusion

It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 8) is ADOPTED.
It is further ordered that Williams’s complaint (ECF No. 5) is DISMISSED
AS MOOT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

6

It is further ordered that Williams’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

7

(ECF No. 4), motion to submit exhibit (ECF No. 6), motion for preliminary

8

injunction (ECF No. 7), motion to subpoena accounting transactions (ECF No. 9),

9

motion for leave to file amended preliminary injunction (ECF No. 10), and motion

10

to keep exhibit A to add to amended civil complaint (ECF No. 11) are DENIED AS

11

MOOT.

12

It is further ordered that Williams’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 12)

13

is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Williams may bring these claims in a new

14

action if he wishes to proceed with these claims.

15
16

It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court ENTER JUDGMENT and
CLOSE this case.

17
18

Dated this 24th day of September, 2024.

19
20
21
22

ANNE R. TRAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

5