Donald v. Lee

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 * * * 3 Keith Donald, Case No. 2:25-cv-00064-RFB-BNW-1 4 Plaintiff, 5 ORDER v. 6 Chris Lee, 7 Defendant. 8 9 Before this Court are several motions filed by Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se. ECF 10 Nos. 57, 68, 70, 78, 82, 84, 88, 89, 90, and 93. This Court discusses each of these motions below. 11 Writ of mandamus (ECF No. 57) 12 Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus “directing the North Las Vegas Municipal Court and 13 the Honorable Chris Lee to rule on pending motions to disqualify the presiding judge and to 14 vacate Petitioner’s plea agreement and underlying charges, and to stay all related proceedings 15 pending adjudication of those motions.” ECF Nos. 57 and 60. Plaintiff believes both 28 U.S.C. 16 §1361 or 28 U.S.C. § 1651 are proper statutory grounds for this relief. First, 28 U.S.C. § 1361 17 does not apply to the relief sought here. As to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, Plaintiff must seek this relief 18 from the Ninth Circuit. In re Kirkland, 75 F.4th 1030 (9th Cir. 2023). Moreover, as explained by 19 the district court at ECF No. 56, there are no proper grounds to interfere with an ongoing state 20 court case. Thus, ECF No. 57 is denied. 21 Dissolution of TRO (ECF No. 68) 22 Plaintiff moves to dissolve a temporary restraining order issued by Judge Lee in state 23 court. ECF No. 68. This Court denies ECF No. 68. As the district judge explained in a previous 24 order, 25 the relief requested in Plaintiff's Motion is squarely precluded under the doctrine of abstention, which prohibits federal courts from granting relief that would 26 interfere with an ongoing state criminal proceeding, absent extraordinary circumstances… 27 The Court finds no such extraordinary circumstances exist here, and Plaintiff's request…is “the most offensive and intrusive action that a federal court can take with respect to a state 1 ECF No. 56. 2 Reconsideration of order (ECF No. 70) 3 Next is Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the withdrawal of counsel in the state court 4 proceedings. ECF No. 70. ECF No. As explained above, this would amount to improper 5 interference with a state criminal proceeding. See also, ECF No. 56. 6 Clarification regarding notice of appeal (ECF No. 78) 7 Plaintiff also requests that this Court clarify the scope and judicial effect of the notice of 8 appeal at ECF No. 69. ECF No. 78. This motion (ECF No. 78) is granted to the extent that the 9 Court clarifies that the Ninth Circuit will decide which issues are subject to appeal and, in turn, 10 what effect (if any) its decision will have on the underlying case. 11 Motion to stay proceedings and discovery (ECF No. 82) 12 Plaintiff also filed a motion to stay proceedings and discovery. ECF No. 82. This Court 13 has broad discretion regarding whether to issue a stay in a case. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 14 248, 254-55 (1936). First, as evidenced in this order, many of the reasons why Plaintiff believes 15 a stay is necessary are now moot issues. In addition, a stay of the proceedings would result in the 16 unnecessary delayed entry of an order on the pending motions to dismiss and to amend. Thus, the 17 motion to stay the case is denied. As to the request to stay discovery, this Court finds Plaintiff 18 has not shown good cause under Rule 26(c). Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 19 1981). As a result, the request is denied. 20 Evidentiary hearing under Franks (ECF No. 84) 21 Plaintiff seeks an evidentiary hearing on a Franks motion to “determine whether false 22 statements, omissions, or unlawful surveillance techniques were used to fabricate probable cause 23 or create the appearance of a criminal case through parallel construction.” ECF No. 84. But 24 Plaintiff cites no points and authorities that would allow him to request an evidentiary hearing in 25 a § 1983 case to obtain discovery to use in his pending state court case. Thus, his motion is 26 denied. 27 To the extent plaintiff seeks to compel any discovery that complies with Rule 26, he may 1 Motion to compel (ECF No. 88) 2 Defendants represent that Plaintiff's motion to compel seeks to compel discovery of 3 || information that was never requested pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34 or 36. Plaintiff is directed 4 || to propound discovery in conformity with these rules and, if the responses are not satisfactory, to 5 || meet and confer before re-filing this motion. The request is denied without prejudice. 6 Motion for protective order (ECF Nos. 89 and 93) 7 Plaintiff requests that this Court stay “all municipal court proceedings in CR004082-23 8 || until this discovery is produced and reviewed.” As explained above, there is no basis to interfere 9 || with the ongoing state case. This request is denied. 10 Motion for expedited review of ECF Nos. 88 and 89 (ECF No. 90) 11 This request is granted. 12 TK 13 Given the multitude of motions above, all filed in less than 30 days, this Court orders 14 |) Plaintiff not to file any more duplicative motions. This Court will not interfere with the state court 15 || proceedings and will not entertain any discovery motions that (1) are filed without a proper meet 16 || and confer, (2) do not follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or (3) seek to solely further 17 || the parallel state court case and which are not relevant to this action. Failure to follow this order 18 || may result in sanctions, including the recommendation that the case be dismissed.! 19 IT IS ORDERED that ECF Nos. 57, 68, 70, 82, 84, 88, 89, 93, are DENIED. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ECF Nos. 78 and 90 are GRANTED. 21 22 DATED: August 25, 2025 23 24 Kx pnw le WER, BRENDA WEKSLER 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 a7 This Court denies all requests from Defendants to impose sanctions. Having said that, Plaintiff 28 || is hereby warned that the court may not be as gracious in the future.