Daniels v. State of Nevada

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 4, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00172
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Brice Daniels, Case No.: 2:23-cv-00172-APG-EJY

4 Petitioner Order Dismissing Case

5 v. [ECF No. 1-1]

6 State of Nevada, et al.

7 Respondents

8 Petitioner Brice Daniels, a pro se Nevada prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of 9 mandamus. ECF No. 1-1 (“Petition”). Following my initial review, I dismiss the Petition due to 10 multiple substantial defects. 11 I. BACKGROUND1 12 In 2019, Daniels was convicted of two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance. 13 Daniels appealed, and the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed on August 10, 2020. In his instant 14 Petition, Daniels explains that he desires to file a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus; 15 however, he had been denied access to the relevant documents—including the transcripts from 16 his trial and his discovery—that he needs to file his petition. ECF No. 1-1. Daniels requests that 17 I order the state district court to produce these documents. Id. at 3. 18 II. DISCUSSION 19 A. Commencement 20 Daniels did not pay the filing fee, and he did not file an application to proceed in forma 21 pauperis (“IFP”). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), the filing fee for “any civil action, suit or 22 1I take judicial notice of the online docket records of the Nevada appellate courts, which are 23 available at http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do. 1 proceeding . . . whether by original process, removal or otherwise,” except for an application for 2 a writ of habeas corpus, is $350.00, to which is added a $52.00 administration fee. Daniels did 3 not file an application for a writ of habeas corpus in this action; instead, he petitions for a writ of 4 mandamus. The filing fee therefore is $402.00. The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act allows the

5 Court, on application, to permit Daniels to pay the $402.00 fee in installments even if he 6 currently is not able to pay the entire fee. But Daniels did not pay the fee or file an application to 7 proceed IFP to pay the fee in installments, so this action has been improperly commenced. 28 8 U.S.C. § 1915. 9 B. The Petition 10 Daniels’ Petition is subject to multiple substantial defects warranting dismissal of the 11 Petition without prejudice. First, I do not have jurisdiction over an action brought against the 12 State of Nevada. Daniels may not proceed directly against the State of Nevada in federal court 13 due to the state sovereign immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment. E.g., O’Connor v. 14 Nevada, 686 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1982) (“It is clear that under the eleventh amendment a state or

15 its agencies cannot be sued in federal court without its consent.”). State sovereign immunity bars 16 an action against the State in federal court regardless of the relief sought. E.g., Pennhurst State 17 School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 101–02 (1984). 18 Second, a federal district court does not have appellate jurisdiction over a state court, 19 whether by direct appeal, mandamus, prohibition, and/or an exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. 20 See, e.g., Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 21 460 U.S. 462, 482–86 (1983); Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003); Demos 22 v. United States District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal court of appeals did 23 not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court). If Daniels wishes to seek 1} collateral review of his conviction in federal court, he must file a timely petition for a writ of 2|| habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, not a petition for a writ of mandamus. 3 Third, to the extent that Daniels challenges his judgment of conviction other than through habeas petition, his civil action is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). And fourth, the Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under federal law. Nevada state statutes do not apply to determine the mandamus authority of a federal district court.’ S| I. CONCLUSION 9 I THEREFORE ORDER that the writ of mandamus (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without prejudice. A certificate of appealability is denied, as reasonable jurists would not find the dismissal of this action without prejudice to be debatable or wrong. 12 I FURTHER ORDER that the clerk of the court (1) file the writ of mandamus (ECF No. 13]| 1-1), (2) enter final judgment accordingly, and (3) close this case. 14 DATED this 4th day of March 2024. 15 Z = — 16 ANDREW P. GORDON 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 21¢ appears that Daniels may have intended to file his Petition in the Nevada Supreme Court based on the form he used.