Martinez v. Nevada Department of Corrections et al, No. 2:2013cv01057 - Document 2 (D. Nev. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER DISMISSING CASE. This action shall be DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk of court shall enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 06/18/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Martinez v. Nevada Department of Corrections et al Doc. 2 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 REDDY M. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, 9 10 vs. 11 12 13 2:13-cv-01057-JCM-VCF ORDER NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,,et al., Defendants. 14 15 This action comes before the court for initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 16 The papers presented are subject to multiple substantial defects. 17 Plaintiff Reddy Martinez has filed a motion and proposed order to transport him from 18 the Southern Desert Correctional Center to the state court courthouse for an unspecified 19 hearing at an undetermined date. In this action, Martinez did not either pay the $350.00 filing 20 fee for initiating a federal civil action or file pauper application. Nor has he submitted a 21 complaint, petition, or other pleading presenting claims. Nor does he have any other 22 proceedings pending in this court. In the state district court matter referenced in his motion, 23 he filed a civil rights complaint and pauper application on or about April 5, 2013. 24 Plaintiff perhaps mistakenly addressed the motion to the clerk of this court. However, 25 he did write in “United States” and strike out “Judicial” in the caption of his motion, to thus 26 read “United States District Court.” 27 Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff seeks relief from this court, his papers are wholly 28 deficient. Plaintiff may not initiate a federal civil action simply by filing a motion; he instead Dockets.Justia.com 1 must file a pleading asserting claims. He further must either pay the filing fee or submit a 2 properly-completed pauper application to properly commence a federal civil action. 3 Moreover, plaintiff may not initiate a civil action against the Nevada Department of 4 Corrections in federal court, regardless of the relief sought.1 Plaintiff’s arguendo claims for 5 relief against the state corrections department, as an arm of the state, are barred by the state 6 sovereign immunity recognized by the eleventh amendment. See, e.g., Taylor v. List, 880 7 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9 th Cir. 1989). State sovereign immunity bars suit in federal court against 8 a state or an arm of the state regardless of the relief sought. See, e.g., Pennhurst State 9 School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-01 (1984). State sovereign immunity limits 10 the jurisdiction of the federal courts and can be raised at any time during the judicial 11 proceedings either by the parties or by the court sua sponte. In re Jackson, 184 F.3d 1046, 12 1048 (9th Cir. 1999). To the extent that plaintiff arguendo also seeks to raise state law claims, 13 he may not pursue any claims, whether under federal or state law, against a state or an arm 14 of the state in federal court because of state sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Carey v. Nevada 15 Gaming Control Board, 279 F.3d 873, 878-78 (9th Cir. 2002); Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 16 382 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9 th Cir. 2004). 17 Furthermore, plaintiff’s boilerplate state form papers allege no viable jurisdictional basis 18 for this federal court to intervene in a pending proceeding in a co-sovereign state district court 19 to direct his presence at that court. If plaintiff wishes an order directing his presence at a 20 proceeding in the state district court, he perhaps should address his motion instead to that 21 court in the first instance. This court has no appellate or supervisory jurisdiction over the state 22 district court to issue orders directing what is to occur in that court. 23 24 This improperly-commenced action therefore will be dismissed without prejudice, as no prejudice of substance could result from such a dismissal of the papers presented. 25 26 1 27 28 The clerk also docketed the state attorney general as a defendant. The court was unable to locate in plaintiff’s papers where he also named the attorney general as a defendant, although his caption reads “Nevada Dept. of Corrections, et al.” The action in all events is subject to dismissal on its face due to multiple substantial defects, even with an arguendo presence of the attorney general as a defendant. -2- 1 2 3 4 5 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this action shall be DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk of court shall enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing this action without prejudice. DATED: June 18, 2013. 6 7 8 9 ___________________________________ JAMES C. MAHAN United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-
]]>
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.
