O'Keefe v. County of Clark et al
Filing
11
ORDER - Plaintiff's Objection (ECF No. 8 ) to Judge Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7 ) is overruled. IFP applications (ECF Nos. 1 , 4 ) are granted. The amended IFP application (ECF No. 9 ) is denied as moot. NDOC sh all pay Clerk from inmate account. (PDF order emailed to NDOC; email (NEF) to Finance 1/29/2025.) Clerk shall file the complaint (ECF No. 1 -1). The complaint is dismissed, without prejudice and without leave to amend. Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/28/2025. (For Distribution by law library.)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
***
6
BRIAN KERRY O’KEEFE,
7
8
9
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
COUNTY OF CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.
10
11
Case No. 3:24-cv-00377-MMD-CLB
I.
SUMMARY
12
Pro se Plaintiff Brian Kerry O’Keefe, who is incarcerated in the custody of the
13
Nevada Department of Corrections at Lovelock Correctional Center, seeks to file a
14
complaint against Defendants County of Clark, Clerk of Court of the Eighth Judicial
15
District Court, Chief Deputy District Attorney John Afshar, District Judge Jennifer Schartz
16
and Doe Defendants arising out of a criminal case unrelated to the case for which he is
17
being held in custody. (ECF No. 1-1.) Before the Court is the Report and
18
Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin
19
recommending the Court grant Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis applications (ECF Nos. 1, 4)
20
and dismiss the complaint without prejudice and without leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.)
21
Plaintiff timely filed an objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 8 (“Objection”).) Because the
22
Court agrees with Judge Baldwin, the Court will overrule the Objection and adopts the
23
R&R in full.
24
II.
DISCUSSION
25
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
26
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
27
timely objects to a magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court is required to “make a de novo
28
determination of those portions of the R&R to which objection is made.” Id. As Plaintiff
1
objects to Judge Baldwin’s recommendation, the Court will review the recommendation
2
de novo.
3
Judge Baldwin construed the allegations in the complaint as Plaintiff attempting to
4
seek a writ of coram nobis relating to his state criminal conviction. (ECF No. 7 at 3.) So
5
construed, Judge Baldwin found that a writ of coram nobis is issued by a court to correct
6
its own errors—not to correct errors of another court—and such a writ cannot be filed in
7
federal court by an individual seeking to challenge a state court decision. (Id.) A writ of
8
error coram nobis allows a court to vacate its own judgment where errors “are of the most
9
fundamental characters” to render the proceedings “invalid.” Estate of McGivney v. United
10
States, 71 F.3d 779, 781-782 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Hirabayashi v. United States, 828
11
F.2d 591, 604 (9th Cir.1987)). The Court agrees with Judge Baldwin that the Court lacks
12
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint.
13
In his Objection, Plaintiff argues that he is asserting a claim under 28 U.S.C.
14
§ 1983, “seeking damages from Defendant County of Clark with alternative remedies to
15
include a possible reparative injunction to Defendant Jane Doe 1 and Grierson to refile
16
Plaintiff’s petition” where he apparently sought declaratory judgment “that includes a
17
petition for a writ of coram nobis as a protected liberty interest.” (ECF No. 8 at 2.) Plaintiff
18
therefore appears to clarify that he is not seeking a writ of coram nobis from this Court. In
19
fact, Plaintiff states that he “in no manner requested any type of writ-federal under the All
20
Writs Act.” (Id.) However, the three claims asserted in the complaint all seem to relate to
21
proceedings in the state court and to the alleged failure to properly consider Plaintiff’s
22
petition for coram nobis and to provide Plaintiff a fair proceeding. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3-5.)
In sum, the Court agrees with Judge Baldwin’s recommendation and will overrule
23
24
Plaintiff’s Objection.
25
III.
26
27
28
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 8) to Judge Baldwin’s
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) is overruled.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis applications (ECF Nos. 1, 4)
2
1
are granted. Plaintiff’s amended in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 9) is denied as
2
moot.
3
It is further ordered that Plaintiff not be required to pay an initial installment fee.
4
However, the full filing fee will still be due at the completion of this action regardless of if
5
it is dismissed or otherwise unsuccessful. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
6
It is further ordered that the Nevada Department of Corrections pay the Clerk 20%
7
of Plaintiff’s preceding months depositions until the full $350 filing fee is paid, and the
8
Court will also adopt this recommendation. (ECF No. 7 at 5); see § 1915(b)(2) (“After
9
payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner shall be required to make monthly
10
payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s
11
account.”).
12
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1).
13
It is further ordered that the complaint is dismissed, without prejudice and without
14
15
16
17
leave to amend.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment in accordance with this
order and close this case.
DATED THIS 28th Day of January 2025.
18
19
20
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?