Cox v. State of Nev.

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: September 12, 2014
• Docket: 62712
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

conspired to prevent other cases he had filed from being removed to federal court for resolution, thereby violating his constitutional rights. The district court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and filed the complaint, but declined to issue summonses until the court could determine whether the complaint had "an arguable basis either in law or in fact." See Jordan v. State ex rel. Dep't of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety, 121 Nev. 44, 57-58, 110 P.3d 30, 41 (2005) (holding that the district court may review in forma pauperis complaints for frivolity and may defer issuing a summons until it has completed its review), abrogated on other grounds by Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 121 Nev. 224, 228 n.6, 181 P.3d 670, 672 n.6 (2008). Instead, the court directed appellant to file points and authorities demonstrating that he was legally and factually entitled to the relief he sought if his allegations were proven. Appellant's initial response to this directive was not satisfactory to the district court, as it failed to provide specific facts and legal authority demonstrating that appellant was entitled to the requested relief. But recognizing that pre-service dismissal was an "extreme action," id. at 58, 110 P.3d at 41, the district court issued a second order directing appellant to amend his complaint to cure any defects therein and ordering him to show cause why he should not be deemed a vexatious litigant. Appellant failed to amend his complaint as directed, and instead filed a responsive pleading raising numerous allegations that were not contained in and do not relate to the allegations from the initial complaint. Thereafter, the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and entered an order declaring appellant a vexatious litigant. This appeal followed. Having considered the record on appeal and appellant's civil proper person appeal statement, which merely reasserts the claims included in his complaint, we conclude that the district court properly SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A csgao dismissed the underlying case. In particular, appellant's appeal statement fails to address the propriety of the district court's dismissal of his complaint and how his post-complaint filings complied with the court's two orders, which were intended to allow appellant to correct the issues with his complaint.' As noted above, the district court provided appellant with both an opportunity to explain why his complaint had an arguable basis in law or in fact and an opportunity to amend the complaint to cure any defects. But appellant failed to provide any legal support for his causes of action and failed to file an amended complaint as directed. Under these circumstances, the dismissal of appellant's complaint must be affirmed. SeeS NRCP 11(b)(2) and (c) (permitting a district court to sanction a proper person party for filing a complaint that is not "warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law"); Jordan, 121 Nev. at 57-58, 110 P.3d at 41; see also Powell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 127 Nev. , n.3, 252 P.3d 668, 672 n.3 (2011) (recognizing that a party waives all arguments not asserted on appeal). It is so ORDERED.

, J.

'Appellant likewise makes no arguments regarding the portion of the challenged order declaring him to be a vexatious litigant. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A ea cc: Hon. Steve L. Dobrescu, District Judge Michael Steve Cox Attorney General/Carson City White Pine County Clerk

SUPREME Coma OF NEVADA 4 (0) I947A