Anthony Ray Price v. Lakes Crossing, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 26, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00472
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 ANTHONY RAY PRICE, Case No. 3:25-CV-00472-MMD-CLB

5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE1 6 v. [ECF Nos. 1, 5, 6] 7 LAKES CROSSING, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff Anthony Ray Price’s (“Price”) application to proceed in 11 forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1), civil rights complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), motion to obtain 12 financial relief, (ECF No. 5), and motion for prosecutorial misconduct, (ECF No. 6). For 13 the reasons stated below, the Court recommends that Price’s in forma pauperis 14 application, (ECF No. 1), motion to obtain financial relief, (ECF No. 5), and motion for 15 prosecutorial misconduct, (ECF No. 6), be denied as moot and his complaint, (ECF No. 16 1-1), be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. 17 I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 18 A person may be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if the 19 person “submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] 20 possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefore. 21 Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant’s belief 22 that the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 23 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (stating 28 U.S.C. § 1915 applies to all actions filed 24 IFP, not just prisoner actions). 25 The Local Rules of Practice for the District of Nevada provide: “Any person who is 26 unable to prepay the fees in a civil case may apply to the court for authority to proceed

27 1 This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M. Du, United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate 1 [IFP]. The application must be made on the form provided by the court and must include 2 a financial affidavit disclosing the applicant’s income, assets, expenses, and liabilities.” 3 LSR 1-1. 4 “[T]he supporting affidavit [must] state the facts as to [the] affiant’s poverty with 5 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” U.S. v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th 6 Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A litigant need not “be absolutely 7 destitute to enjoy the benefits of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 8 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 9 A review of the application to proceed IFP reveals Price cannot pay the filing fee. 10 However, because the Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed, the Court 11 recommends that the motion to proceed IFP, (ECF No. 1), be denied as moot. 12 II. SCREENING STANDARD 13 Prior to ordering service on any Defendant, the Court is required to screen an in 14 forma pauperis complaint to determine whether dismissal is appropriate under certain 15 circumstances. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126 (noting the in forma pauperis statute at 28 16 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint 17 for the enumerated reasons). Such screening is required before a litigation proceeding 18 in forma pauperis may proceed to serve a pleading. Glick v. Edwards, 803 F.3d 505, 507 19 (9th Cir. 2015). 20 “[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that – (A) 21 the allegations of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal – (i) is frivolous or 22 malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks 23 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915(e)(2)(A), (B)(i)-(iii). 25 Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 26 granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and 28 U.S.C. § 27 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks that language. When reviewing the adequacy of a complaint 1 See, e.g., Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The standard for 2 determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 3 under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 4 standard for failure to state a claim.”). Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling 5 on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of America, 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 6 2000) (citation omitted). 7 The Court must accept as true the allegations, construe the pleadings in the light 8 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. 9 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). Allegations in pro se complaints 10 are “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]” Hughes 11 v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). 12 A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a 13 cause of actions,” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief 14 above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 15 “The pleading must contain something more. . . than. . . a statement of facts that merely 16 creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id. (citation and quotation 17 marks omitted). At a minimum, a plaintiff should include “enough facts to state a claim to 18 relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 19 678 (2009). 20 A dismissal should not be without leave to amend unless it is clear from the face 21 of the complaint the action is frivolous and could not be amended to state a federal claim, 22 or the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See Cato v. United 23 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th 24 Cir. 1990). 25 III. SCREENING OF COMPLAINT 26 In his complaint, Price sues Darin Balaam, Washoe County Sheriff, Jennifer Rains, 27 Chief Attorney for Washoe County Detention Center, and Doe Defendants who either 1 U.S.C. § 1983. (See ECF No. 1-1.) His complaint states that he is currently a pretrial 2 detainee currently housed at the Washoe County Detention Facility (“WCDF”). (Id. at 1- 3 2.) Price alleges that on August 10, 2023, the Second Judicial District Court for the State 4 of Nevada found him to be incompetent to stand trial and ordered that he be sent to 5 receive competency treatment at Lakes Crossing Center. (Id. at 2.) However, Price was 6 not transported to Lakes Crossing. (Id.) In November 2023, the state court held another 7 hearing wherein Price was found to be competent to stand trial. (Id.) Price alleges that 8 this was due to allegations of malingering by WCDF staff. (Id.) Price then alleges he 9 subsequently he filed a writ of mandamus challenging the state court’s decision to find 10 him competent, which was granted by the Nevada Supreme Court on April 17, 2025. (Id.) 11 Price alleges that the Nevada Supreme Court ordered that he be transported to Lakes 12 Crossing to receive competency treatment within seven days. (Id.) However, Price alleges 13 he has not been transported. (Id.) 14 Based on these allegations, it appears Price is asking the Court to intervene in 15 ongoing state proceedings. However, the Younger abstention doctrine prevents federal 16 courts from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings even if there is an 17 allegation of a constitutional violation, unless there is an extraordinary circumstance that 18 creates a threat of irreparable injury. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The Supreme 19 Court has stated that “federal-court abstention is required” when there is “a parallel, 20 pending state criminal proceeding.” Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72 21 (2013); see also Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 n.8 (1994) (noting that when a 22 state criminal defendant brings a federal civil rights lawsuit while his criminal charges are 23 pending, abstention is “an appropriate response to the parallel state-court proceedings”). 24 To determine if Younger abstention applies, federal courts look to whether the 25 state criminal proceeding is “(1) ongoing, (2) implicate[s] important state interests, and (3) 26 provide[s] an adequate opportunity… to raise constitutional challenges.” Herrera v. City 27 of Palmdale, 918 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 1 seek to enjoin—or have the practical effect of enjoining—ongoing state proceedings.” 2 ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014) 3 (citing AmehsourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2007)). 4 First, the Court must determine whether Price’s criminal case is ongoing. Herrera, 5 918 F.3d at 1044. In Nevada, “if doubt arises as to the competence of the defendant, the 6 court shall suspend the proceedings, the trial or the pronouncing of the judgment, as the 7 case may be, until the question of competence is determined.” NRS 178.405(1). The 8 same is true upon a finding of incompetence. Turner v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. in & for Cnty. 9 of Clark, 573 P.3d 1249 (Nev. 2025) (citing NRS 178.425(4)). Price alleges that he was 10 found incompetent, then upon a second hearing found to be competent, followed by an 11 order from the Nevada Supreme Court reversing the competency finding and ordering 12 Price to receive competency treatment. Although not attached to his complaint, the Court 13 identified the Nevada Supreme Court’s order granting Price’s writ of mandamus. Price v. 14 Second Jud. Dist. Ct. in & for Cnty. of Washoe, 567 P.3d 319 (2025). In that order, the 15 Nevada Supreme Court explains that “Petitioner Anthony Price is separately charged with 16 two felonies. On August 10, 2023, both matters were stayed pending a competency 17 determination pursuant to NRS 178.425.” Id. at 320. Thus, Price’s criminal proceedings 18 are currently stayed and are ongoing, satisfying the first requirement for Younger 19 abstention. 20 As to the second requirement for Younger abstention, it is clear that Price’s state 21 criminal case implicates important state interests. See Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 22 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curium)) 23 (stating that a state has an important interest in passing upon and correcting violations of 24 a defendant's rights in criminal proceedings). Finally, the third Younger abstention 25 requirement is satisfied because Price is able to raise constitutional challenges through 26 his state criminal case, as demonstrated by his successful writ of mandamus. 27 Consequently, the Court finds that the Younger abstention doctrine does apply in 1 complaint be dismissed, without prejudice, but without leave to amend. 2 IV. CONCLUSION 3 For good cause appearing and for the reasons stated above, the Court 4 recommends that Price’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1), motion 5 to obtain financial relief, (ECF No. 5), and motion for prosecutorial misconduct, (ECF No. 6 6), be denied as moot, and his complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), be dismissed without prejudice 7 and without leave to amend. 8 The parties are advised: 9 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Rule IB 3-2 of the Local Rules of 10 Practice, the parties may file specific written objections to this Report and 11 Recommendation within fourteen days of receipt. These objections should be entitled 12 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” and should be 13 accompanied by points and authorities for consideration by the District Court. 14 2. This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order and any 15 notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the 16 District Court’s judgment. 17 V. RECOMMENDATION 18 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Price’s application to proceed in forma 19 pauperis, (ECF No. 1), motion to obtain financial relief, (ECF No. 5), and motion for 20 prosecutorial misconduct, (ECF No. 6), be DENIED AS MOOT; 21 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Price’s complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), be 22 DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; and, 23 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court ENTER JUDGMENT 24 accordingly and CLOSE this case. 25 DATED: S__e_p_te_m__b_e_r _2_6_, _2_0_2_5.

26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27