-PAL Amezcua v. State Of Nevada et al, No. 2:2012cv00483 - Document 2 (D. Nev. 2012)
Court Description: ORDERED that this matter shall be DISMISSED without prejudice due to the multiple substantial defects presented herein. FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED, as the invocation of federal jurisdiction is wholly without merit for the reasons assigned herein. The Clerk shall enter final judgment accordingly, against petitioner and in favor of respondents, dismissed this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/4/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-PAL Amezcua v. State Of Nevada et al Doc. 2 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 SERGIO AMEZCUA, Petitioner, 9 2:12-cv-00483-GMN-PAL 10 vs. ORDER 11 12 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 This represented habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 comes before the Court for 16 initial review under Rules 1(b) and 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the “Habeas 17 Rules”) and 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The filing fee has been paid. 18 Background 19 Petitioner Sergio Amezcua has been charged in Las Vegas Justice Court with 20 misdemeanor battery constituting domestic violence arising from an alleged incident on 21 November 20, 2010, where he is alleged to have punched and kicked his ex-wife, Marysol 22 Amezcua, about the head and body. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the 23 state district court maintaining that he was entitled to a jury trial on the misdemeanor offense. 24 The state district court denied the petition, and petitioner filed an original petition for a writ of 25 mandamus in the Supreme Court of Nevada challenging the lower court ruling. On February 26 9, 2012, in No. 59868 in that court, the Supreme Court of Nevada denied the petition in a 27 three-page order expressly addressing petitioner’s arguments. The state supreme court 28 specifically rejected petitioner’s arguments that alleged collateral consequences of a possible Dockets.Justia.com 1 conviction – limitation on custody rights, deportation for non-citizens,1 and loss of the right to 2 possess a firearm – required that a jury trial right be afforded at a trial of the misdemeanor 3 offense.2 4 In the present federal petition, Amezcua names the Supreme Court of Nevada as 5 respondent and identifies the State of Nevada as the real party in interest. He requests that 6 this Court issue a writ of habeas corpus dismissing the charges against him or “issue a Writ 7 of mandamus to compel the Nevada Supreme Court to order the lower court to grant Mr. 8 Amezcua’s [sic] a jury trial.” #1, at 2. Discussion 9 10 The petition is subject to multiple substantial defects. 11 First, petitioner has not named a proper respondent. The Court understands that 12 petitioner perhaps may not be in physical custody at the moment and thus possibly may not 13 be able to name a jailer as respondent. However, in all events he may not proceed in federal 14 court – even in a habeas action – against either the State of Nevada or the Supreme Court 15 of Nevada, as an arm of the state, due to the state sovereign immunity recognized by the 16 Eleventh Amendment. See,e.g., Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 17 89, 100-01, 104 S.Ct. 900, 908, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984)(a State may not be sued in federal court 18 regardless of the relief sought); O’Connor v. State of Nevada, 686 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 19 1982)(Supreme Court of Nevada). The Court thus does not have jurisdiction over the petition 20 presented from the very outset. The Court expresses no opinion as to the proper respondent 21 in this context. Cf. Habeas Rule 2(b), Advisory Committee Note to 1976 Adoption. 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Petitioner concedes that he is an American citizen, such that his standing to pursue such a claim would be in substantial question. The Court has no occasion to definitively resolve such an issue here given the multiple substantial defects in the federal habeas petition discussed infra. 2 Petitioner has filed copies of certain state court record materials, and the Court has taken judicial notice of the online docket record of the state supreme court as to remaining materials: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=28030 (No. 59868) http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do (generic search window) 28 -2- 1 Second, to the extent that petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus from this lower federal 2 court directed to the Supreme Court of Nevada, he impermissibly seeks to have this Court 3 exercise an appellate jurisdiction over the state supreme court that it does not have. Federal 4 district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over a state supreme court or other state 5 court, whether by direct appeal, mandamus, or otherwise. See,e.g., Rooker v. Fidelity Trust 6 Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 7 898 (9th Cir. 2003). While the jurisdictional limitation recognized in Rooker does not function 8 as a rule of claim or issue preclusion, it does preclude a party from seeking the relief sought 9 here, an order from a lower federal court directing a state supreme court how to proceed in 10 its cases. If petitioner wants a federal court to issue directives to the Supreme Court of 11 Nevada, he must seek such relief in the United States Supreme Court. 12 Third, the petition improperly seeks federal judicial intervention in a pending state 13 criminal proceeding. As a general rule, even when the claims in a petition, arguendo, 14 otherwise have been fully exhausted in the state courts, a federal court will not entertain a 15 habeas petition seeking intervention in a pending state criminal proceeding, absent special 16 circumstances. See,e.g., Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983); Carden 17 v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-85 (9th Cir. 1980); Davidson v. Klinger, 411 F.2d 746 (9th Cir. 18 1969). This rule of restraint ultimately is grounded in principles of comity that flow from the 19 abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). 20 Under the Younger abstention doctrine, federal courts may not interfere with pending state 21 criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. 22 No such extraordinary circumstances are presented here. Petitioner is challenging a 23 denial of a jury trial in a misdemeanor case in a state justice court based upon the alleged 24 collateral consequences from a conviction. At the very outset, one of the possible collateral 25 consequences relied upon – possible deportation – does not even apply to him. To the extent 26 that petitioner faces possible limitations on parental rights and his right to bear arms from a 27 conviction, his situation is not different in substance from any criminal defendant facing 28 potential loss of constitutional rights – including the most fundamental right, to liberty – in a -3- 1 pending criminal prosecution. A criminal defendant alleging that the state courts have rejected 2 his constitutional objections to pretrial rulings, including rulings as to fundamental rights, in a 3 pending state criminal prosecution is a regular occurrence, not an extraordinary circumstance. 4 Petitioner must seek relief either via a petition in the United States Supreme Court or in a 5 habeas petition filed after a conviction and full exhaustion of state judicial remedies. 6 Petitioner’s cited cases are not to the contrary. Cases in which a federal court of 7 appeals issues a pretrial writ of mandamus to a federal district court directing that a jury trial 8 be had in federal court do not establish that a federal district court properly similarly may issue 9 a writ to a state court directing that a jury trial be had. Federal courts, again, do not intervene 10 in pending state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances not presented here. 11 If petitioner arguendo unconstitutionally is denied a jury trial by the state courts and is 12 convicted, he may challenge his conviction on that basis via a petition for a writ of certiorari 13 to the United States Supreme Court and/or a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in 14 federal district court after his conviction and full exhaustion of state judicial remedies. 15 Due to the multiple substantial defects presented, this matter will be dismissed without 16 prejudice. The Court finds that further proceedings herein prior to entry of judgment would 17 be futile. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this matter shall be DISMISSED without prejudice due to the multiple substantial defects presented herein. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED, as the invocation of federal jurisdiction is wholly without merit for the reasons assigned herein. The Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment accordingly, against petitioner and in favor of respondents, dismissing this action without prejudice. DATED: April 4, 2012 25 26 27 _________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro United States District Judge 28 -4-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
