1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *
7 MARTIN AKERMAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-01734-RFB-DJA
8 Petitioner, ORDER
9 v.
10 THE NEVADA NATIONAL GUARD, et al.,
11 Respondents.
12 Before the Court is Petitioner Martin Akerman’s Motion for Reconsideration. For the 13 foregoing reasons, the Court denies reconsideration. 14 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 Petitioner Martin Akerman’s initiated this case on September 16, 2024, with a Motion for 17 Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and Petition for writ of replevin and for writ of mandamus. 18 ECF No. 1, 1-2. Akerman’s Motion sought to proceed without paying the filing fee under 38 U.S.C. 19 § 4323(h)(1) of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 20 (“USERRA”). ECF No. 1. On October 18, 2024, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Daniel J. 21 Albregts denied Mr. Akerman’s (ECF No. 1) Motion without prejudice, because neither his 22 Petition nor Motion indicated that he was claiming rights under USERRA. ECF No. 6. The Court 23 gave Akerman until November 18, 2024, to either pay the filing fee, file an application to proceed 24 in forma pauperis (“IFP application”) on the Court’s approved form, or file a renewed motion to 25 proceed without paying the filing fee under USERRA that explained the basis for his motion. Id. 26 The Court warned Mr. Akerman that failure to comply with the Court’s Order could result in 27 the recommended dismissal of the case. Id. 28 1 On October 15, 2024, Akerman filed a renewed Motion for leave to proceed without paying 2 the filing fee under USERRA. ECF No. 7. Akerman also filed other procedurally improper 3 Motions. ECF Nos. 7, 5, 9, 10. Judge Albregts again denied the Motion for leave to proceed 4 without paying the filing fee, because Akerman’s renewed Motion had not cured its previous 5 deficiency—it still failed to establish how Akerman’s claims arise under USERRA. ECF No. 11. 6 The Court provided Akerman another opportunity to 1) pay the filing fee; 2) file an IFP application 7 on the Court’s approved form; or 3) file a renewed motion to proceed without paying the filing fee 8 under USERRA that explained how his claims arise under that statute. Id. The Court extended the 9 time for Akerman to resolve the filing fee issue until February 7, 2024. Id. The Court again 10 warned Akerman that failure to comply with the Court’s Order could result in the dismissal 11 of his case. Id. 12 Akerman did not comply with the Court’s Order by February 7, 2024. Instead, Akerman 13 filed additional, procedurally improper Motions. See ECF Nos. 12-14. In his Motion for hearing, 14 filed on February 4, 2025, Akerman included a “request for extension…before further action in 15 this case” in the body of his motion. ECF No. 14. The requested extension was until February 24, 16 2025, however Akerman did not identify the deadline he sought to extend in that request and did 17 not file a separate motion for extension as required by this Court’s Local Rules. See LR IC 2-2(b) 18 (requiring that “[f]or each type of relief requested or purpose of the document, a separate document 19 must be filed and a separate event must be selected for that document.”). Akerman did not file a 20 renewed Motion, IFP application, or pay the filing fee by the February 7, 2025, deadline, nor by 21 the extended February 24, 2025 deadline he requested. 22 On March 17, 2025, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Albregts filed an Order in error, which 23 provided Mr. Ackerman an additional extension to address the matter of the filing fee. ECF No. 24 17. This Court struck that Order as entered because of clerical error. ECF No. 17. On March 18, 25 2025, Akerman filed an emergency IFP application. ECF No. 17. The application is dated August 26 29, 2024, and is an exact copy of the application Akerman filed in a separate case in this district, 27 Akerman v. Kerner, Case Number 2:24-cv-01602-GMN-EJY. In his Motion, Akerman did not 28 address his failure to meet the Court’s deadline of February 7, 2025, nor his requested extended 1 deadline of February 24, 2025. See ECF No. 17. 2 On April 14, 2025, the Court dismissed this case as a sanction for Mr. Ackerman’s failure 3 to address the filing fee by the Court ordered deadline. ECF No. 20. On April 17, 2025, Mr. 4 Ackerman filed a Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 22. The Court’s Order on the Motion for 5 Reconsideration and all other pending motions follows. 6 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 A Court may set aside a final judgment, order, or proceeding for “mistake, inadvertence, 9 surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). In Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick 10 Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993), the Supreme Court interpreted “neglect” to encompass 11 “both simple, faultless omissions to act and, more commonly, omissions caused by carelessness.” 12 Id. at 388. While this Court liberally construes pro se pleadings, pro se litigants must still comply 13 with procedural rules and Court deadlines. See Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 14 1986) (“[P]ro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than parties 15 with attorneys of record.”). 16 Having reviewed Ackerman’s Motion for Reconsideration, the Court finds it fails to 17 demonstrate excusable neglect. Ackerman does not acknowledge his failure to meet the February 18 deadlines to address the matter of the filing fee, let alone provide any reasonable explanation for 19 that failure. Instead, he relies upon the Court’s (ECF No. 17) Order, which was filed in error and 20 stricken, as causing his confusion about the deadline. However, the stricken Order was filed over 21 a month after the deadline to address the filing fee had passed. Ackerman let that deadline pass 22 after having been twice warned that failure to comply with the Court’s deadlines regarding the 23 filing fee could result in the dismissal of this case. 24 Akerman further argues that his case should be reopened because the Court erred in finding 25 he was not entitled to the fee exception under USERRA, which prohibits “discrimination against 26 persons because of their service in the uniformed services.” 38 U.S.C. § 4301(a)(3). But 27 Akerman’s Petition in this case contains no allegations that he was discriminated against by an 28 employer because of his military service, and he failed to establish how his claims in this case 1 arise under USERRA, despite having been provided multiple opportunities to do so. Indeed, his 2 Motion for Reconsideration also does not explain how his claims at all relate to alleged 3 discrimination by an employer based on his military service. 4 Finally, the Court notes that this Court lacks jurisdiction to provide the relief requested in 5 Akerman’s Petition. The Petition asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus against the Merit 6 Systems Protection Board (MSPB) related to alleged delays and violations of due process rights 7 by the MSPB. Pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), “[t]he Supreme Court and all 8 courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their 9 respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. 10 Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *
7 MARTIN AKERMAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-01734-RFB-DJA
8 Petitioner, ORDER
9 v.
10 THE NEVADA NATIONAL GUARD, et al.,
11 Respondents.
12 Before the Court is Petitioner Martin Akerman’s Motion for Reconsideration. For the 13 foregoing reasons, the Court denies reconsideration. 14 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 Petitioner Martin Akerman’s initiated this case on September 16, 2024, with a Motion for 17 Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and Petition for writ of replevin and for writ of mandamus. 18 ECF No. 1, 1-2. Akerman’s Motion sought to proceed without paying the filing fee under 38 U.S.C. 19 § 4323(h)(1) of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 20 (“USERRA”). ECF No. 1. On October 18, 2024, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Daniel J. 21 Albregts denied Mr. Akerman’s (ECF No. 1) Motion without prejudice, because neither his 22 Petition nor Motion indicated that he was claiming rights under USERRA. ECF No. 6. The Court 23 gave Akerman until November 18, 2024, to either pay the filing fee, file an application to proceed 24 in forma pauperis (“IFP application”) on the Court’s approved form, or file a renewed motion to 25 proceed without paying the filing fee under USERRA that explained the basis for his motion. Id. 26 The Court warned Mr. Akerman that failure to comply with the Court’s Order could result in 27 the recommended dismissal of the case. Id. 28 1 On October 15, 2024, Akerman filed a renewed Motion for leave to proceed without paying 2 the filing fee under USERRA. ECF No. 7. Akerman also filed other procedurally improper 3 Motions. ECF Nos. 7, 5, 9, 10. Judge Albregts again denied the Motion for leave to proceed 4 without paying the filing fee, because Akerman’s renewed Motion had not cured its previous 5 deficiency—it still failed to establish how Akerman’s claims arise under USERRA. ECF No. 11. 6 The Court provided Akerman another opportunity to 1) pay the filing fee; 2) file an IFP application 7 on the Court’s approved form; or 3) file a renewed motion to proceed without paying the filing fee 8 under USERRA that explained how his claims arise under that statute. Id. The Court extended the 9 time for Akerman to resolve the filing fee issue until February 7, 2024. Id. The Court again 10 warned Akerman that failure to comply with the Court’s Order could result in the dismissal 11 of his case. Id. 12 Akerman did not comply with the Court’s Order by February 7, 2024. Instead, Akerman 13 filed additional, procedurally improper Motions. See ECF Nos. 12-14. In his Motion for hearing, 14 filed on February 4, 2025, Akerman included a “request for extension…before further action in 15 this case” in the body of his motion. ECF No. 14. The requested extension was until February 24, 16 2025, however Akerman did not identify the deadline he sought to extend in that request and did 17 not file a separate motion for extension as required by this Court’s Local Rules. See LR IC 2-2(b) 18 (requiring that “[f]or each type of relief requested or purpose of the document, a separate document 19 must be filed and a separate event must be selected for that document.”). Akerman did not file a 20 renewed Motion, IFP application, or pay the filing fee by the February 7, 2025, deadline, nor by 21 the extended February 24, 2025 deadline he requested. 22 On March 17, 2025, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Albregts filed an Order in error, which 23 provided Mr. Ackerman an additional extension to address the matter of the filing fee. ECF No. 24 17. This Court struck that Order as entered because of clerical error. ECF No. 17. On March 18, 25 2025, Akerman filed an emergency IFP application. ECF No. 17. The application is dated August 26 29, 2024, and is an exact copy of the application Akerman filed in a separate case in this district, 27 Akerman v. Kerner, Case Number 2:24-cv-01602-GMN-EJY. In his Motion, Akerman did not 28 address his failure to meet the Court’s deadline of February 7, 2025, nor his requested extended 1 deadline of February 24, 2025. See ECF No. 17. 2 On April 14, 2025, the Court dismissed this case as a sanction for Mr. Ackerman’s failure 3 to address the filing fee by the Court ordered deadline. ECF No. 20. On April 17, 2025, Mr. 4 Ackerman filed a Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 22. The Court’s Order on the Motion for 5 Reconsideration and all other pending motions follows. 6 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 A Court may set aside a final judgment, order, or proceeding for “mistake, inadvertence, 9 surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). In Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick 10 Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993), the Supreme Court interpreted “neglect” to encompass 11 “both simple, faultless omissions to act and, more commonly, omissions caused by carelessness.” 12 Id. at 388. While this Court liberally construes pro se pleadings, pro se litigants must still comply 13 with procedural rules and Court deadlines. See Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 14 1986) (“[P]ro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than parties 15 with attorneys of record.”). 16 Having reviewed Ackerman’s Motion for Reconsideration, the Court finds it fails to 17 demonstrate excusable neglect. Ackerman does not acknowledge his failure to meet the February 18 deadlines to address the matter of the filing fee, let alone provide any reasonable explanation for 19 that failure. Instead, he relies upon the Court’s (ECF No. 17) Order, which was filed in error and 20 stricken, as causing his confusion about the deadline. However, the stricken Order was filed over 21 a month after the deadline to address the filing fee had passed. Ackerman let that deadline pass 22 after having been twice warned that failure to comply with the Court’s deadlines regarding the 23 filing fee could result in the dismissal of this case. 24 Akerman further argues that his case should be reopened because the Court erred in finding 25 he was not entitled to the fee exception under USERRA, which prohibits “discrimination against 26 persons because of their service in the uniformed services.” 38 U.S.C. § 4301(a)(3). But 27 Akerman’s Petition in this case contains no allegations that he was discriminated against by an 28 employer because of his military service, and he failed to establish how his claims in this case 1 arise under USERRA, despite having been provided multiple opportunities to do so. Indeed, his 2 Motion for Reconsideration also does not explain how his claims at all relate to alleged 3 discrimination by an employer based on his military service. 4 Finally, the Court notes that this Court lacks jurisdiction to provide the relief requested in 5 Akerman’s Petition. The Petition asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus against the Merit 6 Systems Protection Board (MSPB) related to alleged delays and violations of due process rights 7 by the MSPB. Pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), “[t]he Supreme Court and all 8 courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their 9 respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. 10 Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004). Pursuant to the Civil Service Reform Act, the Federal 11 Circuit is vested with jurisdiction to review decisions by the MSPB. See 5 U.S. § 7103 et seq. The 12 Federal Circuit already denied Akerman’s Petition for writ of mandamus, in an Order Akerman 13 attached to his Petition in this case. See ECF No. 1-2; In Re Martin Akerman, Case No. 24-130 14 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2024). This Court lacks jurisdiction to review decisions by the MSPB, so any 15 writ of mandamus against the MSPB by this Court would not be “in aid of” its jurisdiction. See 16 Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534–535, (1999) (explaining that the All Writs Act 17 “authorizes employment of extraordinary writs ‘in aid of’ the issuing court's jurisdiction” but does 18 not “enlarge that jurisdiction”). 19 To the extent Akerman seeks reinstatement of his federal tenure, based on allegations that 20 adverse employment actions were taken against him by the Nevada National Guard in violation of 21 his rights under the Civil Service Reform Act (CRSA), this Court likewise lacks jurisdiction to 22 grant the relief requested. See Elgin v. Dep't of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012) (holding a federal 23 district court lacks jurisdiction to review claims regarding adverse employment actions covered 24 under the CRSA, because the statute’s review scheme provides the exclusive avenue to judicial 25 review through the MSPB).1 Indeed, Akerman has sought redress based on his whistleblower 26 allegations before the MSPB, as evidenced in the MSPB decisions attached to his Petition. See
27 1 See also MSPB Report, Whistleblower Protections for Federal Employees (2010) 28 https://www.mspb.gov/studies/studies/Whistleblower Protections for Federal Employees 557972 (describing how a whistleblower can seek redress through the MSPB). 1 ECF No. 1-2; Martin Akerman v. Dept. of the Army, MSPB Docket Nos. DC-0752-22-0376-S-1; DC-0752-22-0376-I-1. Akerman’s dissatisfaction with the MSPB’s decisions does not vest this 3 | Court jurisdiction to review those decisions. 4 In sum, even if Akerman had timely addressed the issue of the filing fee, this Court would 5 | not have jurisdiction over his claims. Accordingly, even in light of the “the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits,” dismissal of this action is warranted. In_re 7 | Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). 8 9 Il. CONCLUSION 10 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Akerman’s (ECF No. 22) Motion for 11 | Reconsideration is DENIED. This case will remain closed. No other documents may be filed by 12 | Mr. Akerman in this now closed case unless related to an appeal. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending (ECF Nos. 24, 26, 27) Motions are 14| DENIED as moot. 15 DATED: September 4, 2025. 16 17 18 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-5-