Bonham v. State of Nevada

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 8, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01172
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Bryan P. Bonham, Case No. 2:23-cv-01172-CDS-BNW

5 Petitioner Order Denying Petitioner’s IFP Application, Denying Motion for 6 v. Clarification/Tolling Time, and Closing Case 7 State of Nevada, [ECF Nos. 1, 1-1] 8 Respondent

10 This action was initiated, pro se, on July 25, 2023, by Bryan P. Bonham, an individual 11 incarcerated at Nevada’s High Desert State Prison. On that date, Bonham filed an application to 12 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), a “Motion for Clarification/Tolling Time” (ECF No. 1-1) 13 (“Motion”), with several exhibits attached, and a Notice of Motion (ECF No. 1-2). Bonham has 14 not filed, in this action, a complaint or a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 15 It appears from Bonham’s motion and the exhibits attached to it that Bonham is 16 dissatisfied with the Nevada state courts’ handling of a civil rights action he filed in Nevada’s 17 Eleventh Judicial District Court. The Nevada Court of Appeals has described Bonham’s state- 18 court civil rights action as follows: 19 Bonham, who is incarcerated, initiated the underlying action against respondents the State of Nevada and Barbara K. Cegavske, who was the Secretary of State of 20 Nevada at the time. In his original complaint, Bonham alleged that Cegavske violated her oath of office and his constitutional rights by failing to provide him a 21 copy of certain senate bills, including Senate Bill 2 from 1957—which enacted the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS)—and instead directing him to the Research 22 Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) to obtain these materials. Bonham further alleged that it is unclear whether LCB produces accurate records 23 and that if Cegavske had produced a true and correct copy of Senate Bill 2 as requested, it would have been revealed that the bill lacks an enacting clause as 24 required under Article 4, Section 23 of the Nevada Constitution, and that it embraced more than one subject in violation of Article 4, Section 17 of the Nevada 25 Constitution, which he contends would render the NRS and his criminal conviction invalid. 26 27 Ex. 2, ECF No. 1-1 at 10–11. On March 30, 2023, the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the state 28 district court’s judgment dismissing that action. See id. at 13. Apparently, Bonham seeks to appeal 1 || to this federal district court from the state courts’ rulings in his state-court civil rights action. In 2 || his motion, Bonham’s request is as follows: 3 (1) Petitioner requests this court to do one of the following: (1) order that his time not start for appeal to this court until Nev. Sup. Crt issue an order. (2) this court 4 be watchfull of Petitioner’s rights, order the Nev Crt of Appeals to stay out of this case. (3) As this case does involve the Nev Constitution, also the U.S. Constitution, 5 the corruption of elected officials, that a statute cannot override the Constitution see Blair v. Crawford 275 F.3d 115 (9th Cir 2002) this honorable court take 6 jurisdiction due to the nature of the issues involved. 7 |) ECF No. l-Lat 5. 8 A federal district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal from the 9 || final judgment of a state court. Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 777 (9th Cir. 2012); Noel v. Hall, 341 10 |) F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). Because Bonham has not filed a complaint or a petition, and because this court is 12 || without subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal from a state-court judgment, this action is 13 || meritless, and is summarily dismissed, and Bonham’s motions denied. 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is 15 || directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 18 || 1] is DENIED. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Clarification/Tolling Time [ECF No. l- 20 || 1] is DENIED. . 21 DATED: August 8, 2023 /) 22 LZ 23 si Cristina DY Silva 24 Unite slates District Judge 25 □

26 27 28

XY