Dodd v. Cox, No. 3:2013cv00587 - Document 4 (D. Nev. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice to the filing of a new properly commenced action under a new docket number with either the required filing fee or a properly completed application to proceed IFP. The Clerk shall send forms and copies of documents to plaintiff (mailed 11/8/2013). The Clerk shall enter final judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 11/06/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dodd v. Cox Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 SHAUNNA LEANN DODD, 9 Plaintiff, 3:13-cv-00587-RCJ-WGC 10 vs. 11 ORDER 12 13 JAMES COX , Defendant. 14 15 16 This civil rights action by a Nevada state criminal defendant comes before the Court for initial review. 17 Plaintiff failed to properly commence this action by submitting an application to proceed 18 in forma pauperis on the required form. Under Local Rule LSR 1-1, a person seeking pauper 19 status must file an application on the Court’s required form, with both a financial certificate 20 by an authorized officer and a statement of her inmate account for the prior six months. 21 Plaintiff neither paid the filing fee nor filed a pauper application. 22 In a cover letter, plaintiff asserts that, at the jail, she turned in “the financial form with 23 a kite on September 19, 2013" but had not received back a response. She maintains that her 24 jailers have interfered with her legal mail and access to the courts. 25 The docket records of this Court reflect that, in the preceding approximately a month 26 through the date of the filing of the present action, plaintiff: (1) filed a petition for removal in 27 this Court in No. 3:13-cv-00538-MMD-WGC and paid $400.00 for the filing fee, seeking to 28 remove her pending state murder prosecution to federal court; (2) has filed multiple extensive Dockets.Justia.com 1 papers in that action over her own signature; (3) filed the present action; and (4) filed also 2 another federal civil rights action the same day in No. 3:13-cv-00588-RCJ-WGC. 3 The docket records of this Court accordingly: (a) tend to belie plaintiff’s assertion that 4 she is unable to access the Court to file papers; and (b) further suggest that petitioner may 5 well have available financial resources with which to pay the filing fee in full. 6 Plaintiff may not commence an action without either paying the filing fee or submitting 7 an appropriate pauper application. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, even if plaintiff 8 is not able to pay an initial partial filing fee, she will be required to pay the full $350.00 filing 9 fee in installments drawn from her inmate account. The full filing fee must be paid even if the 10 action later is dismissed. If the full filing fee is not paid during plaintiff’s detention at the local 11 jail, the remaining unpaid portion of the fee will be drawn from her inmate account following 12 her transfer to the Nevada Department of Corrections.1 If she seeks to proceed without 13 payment, she must present the Court with a properly completed pauper application, 14 acknowledging the foregoing requirements. If she fails to either submit a properly completed 15 pauper application or pay the filing fee, she fails to properly commence the action. 16 The Court therefore will dismiss this improperly-commenced action without prejudice. 17 It does not appear that a dismissal without prejudice will materially impact the analysis of any 18 statute of limitations issue or other issues in a promptly filed and properly commenced new 19 federal action or otherwise result in substantial prejudice.2 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 The state district court’s online docket sheet reflects that a jury found plaintiff guilty of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon on October 10, 2013. Sentencing is scheduled for November 26, 2013. 2 Plaintiff alleges that a vehicle was improperly seized by the Washoe County Sheriff’s Department on December 29, 2012, for evidence without her permission or a warrant. She further alleges that she was arrested without a warrant on January 3, 2013. She names as defendant the investigating detective. She seeks “[r]elease from custody, [to be] cleared of all charges and my personalty and biological property restored.” Even if plaintiff arguendo presented a viable and currently cognizable claim, more than one year remained in the applicable two-year statute of limitations at the time that this action was filed. A dismissal without prejudice therefore will not materially impact the analysis of any statute of limitations or other issue. 28 (continued...) -2- 1 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this action shall be DISMISSED without prejudice 2 to the filing of a new properly commenced action under a new docket number with either the 3 required filing fee or a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. The 4 Clerk of Court shall SEND plaintiff two copies each of a pauper form for a prisoner and a civil 5 rights complaint form, along with the instructions for the forms and a copy of all papers that 6 she submitted. 7 8 The Clerk shall enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing this action without prejudice. DATED: This 6th day of November, 2013. 9 10 11 ___________________________________ ROBERT C. JONES Chief United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 (...continued) Plaintiff at all times remains responsible for calculating the applicable limitations periods and properly and timely commencing an action for appropriate relief. Nothing in this order directs, grants permission, or advises plaintiff to file any particular action. Nor does this order hold by implication or otherwise that plaintiff presents a viable claim that currently is cognizable in a federal civil rights action. The present improperlycommenced action simply is being dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new action. 27 28 The Court would note that any arguendo issues that plaintiff allegedly is having with mail at the jail would become moot vis-à-vis that facility upon her transfer to the Nevada Department of Corrections. -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.
