Christopher Jacob Stevens v. Lincoln Co. Sheriffs Office, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedOctober 23, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-02340
StatusUnknown

This text of Christopher Jacob Stevens v. Lincoln Co. Sheriffs Office, et al. (Christopher Jacob Stevens v. Lincoln Co. Sheriffs Office, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Christopher Jacob Stevens v. Lincoln Co. Sheriffs Office, et al., (D. Nev. 2025).

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Christopher Jacob Stevens, No. 2:24-cv-02340-RFB-MDC

4 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 5 vs. PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 5) AND DIRECTING 6 Lincoln Co. Sheriffs Office, et al., PLAINTIFF TO INDICATE IF HE WISHES TO PURSUE HIS SECTION 1983 OR 7 Defendants. HABEAS CLAIM. 8 Pending before the Court is pro se plaintiff Christopher J. Steven’s Motion/Application to 9 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 5). On January 7, 2025, plaintiff filed his renewed IFP 10 application following the Court’s denial of plaintiff’s prior IFP application and dismissal of plaintiff’s 11 prior complaint. ECF No. 4. On that same day, plaintiff also filed an Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 12 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 6) and a Petition for Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 8). For 13 the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the IFP application without prejudice. Plaintiff has until 14 December 1, 2025, to file a renewed IFP application in accordance to this Order. Plaintiff also has until 15 December 1, 2025, to file a notice indicating whether he: (1) wishes to pursue his § 1983 civil rights 16 complaint (ECF No. 6) and strike his habeas petition (ECF No. 8) in this case; or (2) strike his § 1983 17 civil rights complaint and pursue his habeas petition. 18 DISCUSSION 19 I. IFP APPLICATION 20 A. Legal Standard 21 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action "without prepayment of fees or 22 security thereof" if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff "is unable to 23 pay such fees or give security therefor." If the plaintiff is a "prisoner" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), 24 as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), he must pay the entire fee in installments, 25 1 1 regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. 2 Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 3 Under the PLRA, a prisoner seeking leave to proceed IFP must submit a "certified copy of the 4 trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the six-month period 5 immediately preceding the filing of the complaint." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 6 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the Court must assess an initial 7 payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the 8 average monthly balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner 9 has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the 10 prisoner must collect subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month's income, in any 11 month in which the prisoner's account exceeds $10, and forward those payments to the Court until the 12 entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Even if this action is dismissed, the prisoner must 13 still pay the full filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b) and the monthly payments from his inmate account will 14 continue until the balance is paid. 15 For an inmate to apply for in forma pauperis status, the inmate must submit all three of the 16 following documents to the Court: (1) a completed Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis for 17 Inmate, which is pages 1–3 of the Court’s approved form, that is properly signed by the inmate twice on 18 page 3; (2) a completed Financial Certificate, which is page 4 of the Court’s approved form, that is 19 properly signed by both the inmate and a prison or jail official; and (3) a copy of the inmate’s prison or 20 jail trust fund account statement for the previous six-month period. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)–(2); Nev. 21 Loc. R. Prac. LSR 1-2. 22 B. Analysis 23 Plaintiff is a prisoner under the PLRA. “[T]h term “prisoner” means any person incarcerated or 24 detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, 25 2 1 violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or 2 diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h). Plaintiff is incarcerated at Lincoln County Detention 3 Center. See ECF No. 5 at 3. Therefore, plaintiff was required to submit all three documents to properly 4 proceed in forma pauperis as noted above. Plaintiff did not submit a copy of the inmate’s prison or jail 5 trust fund account statement for the previous six-month period or state that he does not have such 6 accounts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)–(2); Nev. Loc. R. Prac. LSR 1-2. Thus, the Court denies plaintiff’s 7 IFP application without prejudice. Plaintiff must file all the appropriate documents in compliance with 8 the PLRA and the Local Rules or the Court may recommend that this case be dismissed. 9 II. PLAINTIFF CANNOT PURSUE BOTH A SECTION 1983 AND HABEAS ACTIONS IN 10 THE SAME CASE 11 Plaintiff also cannot pursue both § 1983 and habeas actions in the same case. See Nettles v. 12 Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (reiterating that “habeas is the exclusive vehicle for claims 13 brought by state prisoners that fall within the core of habeas, and such claims may not be brought in a § 14 1983 action”); Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (holding that “a state prisoner's § 1983 15 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)—no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no 16 matter the target of the prisoner's suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison 17 proceedings)—if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or 18 its duration”). Plaintiff may pursue either his § 1983 complaint or his habeas petition in this case but not 19 both. He may file the other action in a separate case. 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 3 1 ACCORDINGLY, 2 IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. The IFP application (ECF No. 5) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4 2. Plaintiff has until December 1, 2025, either pay the full $405 filing fee or file a fully 5 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three required documents: (1) a 6 completed application with the inmate’s two signatures on page 3, (2) a completed financial 7 certificate that is signed both by the inmate and the prison or jail official, and (3) a copy of 8 his prison or jail trust fund account statement for the previous six-month period. 9 10 3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Wilkinson v. Dotson
544 U.S. 74 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Damous Nettles v. Randy Grounds
830 F.3d 922 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Rosselló-González v. Calderón-Serra
398 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Christopher Jacob Stevens v. Lincoln Co. Sheriffs Office, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-jacob-stevens-v-lincoln-co-sheriffs-office-et-al-nvd-2025.