4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6 * * *
7 Michael Griffith, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01397-GMN-BNW
8 Plaintiffs, Order and Report & Recommendation re 9 v. ECF No. 1
10 Paran LLP,
11 Defendant.
12 13 Pro se plaintiff Detrick Curtis Conerly1 initiated this lawsuit on July 26, 2021, by filing an 14 application to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint. ECF No. 1. 15 Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to 16 prepay fees or costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the Court will grant his request to 17 proceed in forma pauperis at ECF No. 1. 18 The Court now screens the complaint at ECF No. 1-1. 19 I. Analysis 20 A. Screening Standard 21 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 22 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 23 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 24 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 25 26 1 Mr. Conerly initiated this case along with Michael Griffith. Mr. Griffith failed to comply with the Court’s 27 order to update his address. See ECF No. 6 at 1. As a result, the undersigned magistrate judge recommended that he be dismissed from the case. Id. Because Mr. Griffith did not object to the report and recommendation within the 1 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard 2 for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 3 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 4 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 5 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 6 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 7 his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 8 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 9 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of 10 material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler 11 Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 12 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff 13 must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 14 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. 15 But, unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro 16 se plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s 17 deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 18 B. Screening the Complaint 19 Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendant Paran LLP has failed to pay him and his former 20 co-plaintiff Michael Griffith any of the money stemming from a $104,880 judgment obtained by 21 Conerly and Griffith from a Pennsylvania state trial court. ECF No. 1-2 at 1. As a result, Plaintiff 22 seeks to enforce this alleged judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1738. Id. Of note, he states that this 23 Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, explaining that both Plaintiff and 24 Defendant are citizens of different states2 and the amount in controversy amounts to at least 25 $76,000. Id. 26 27
2 1 A state court judgment has “the same full faith and credit in every court within the United 2 States ... as [it has] by law or usage in the courts of such State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1738; see also Migra 3 v. Warren City School District Board of Education, 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984) (noting that it is 4 clearly established that federal courts are to give state court judgments full faith and credit). But 5 the case law makes clear that giving a state court’s judgment full faith and credit is not the same 6 as enforcing or registering that judgment in federal court. This is because the act of enforcement 7 or registration transforms the state court judgment into a federal judgment. Moreover, federal 8 courts generally lack the authority to enforce or register state court judgments. See 28 U.S.C. 9 § 1963.3 10 Plaintiff did not include a certified copy of the judgment. While there is a document titled 11 “Exemplified Record from Westmoreland County” that includes three different dollar amounts, 12 none of which exceed $150, this document simply appears to be a receipt of fees related to the 13 Pennsylvania state case. See ECF No. 1-2 at 4. That said, even had Plaintiff included a certified 14 copy, this Court lacks the authority to enforce such a judgment. This is because, as noted above, 15 28 U.S.C. § 1963 does not allow federal courts to enforce state-court judgments. See 16 Fox Painting Co. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 16 F.3d 115, 117 (6th Cir. 1994) (“Nothing in the 17 language of section 1963 grants authority to a district court to register judgments of any courts 18 other than other district courts or the Court of International Trade.”). 19 Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, the statute under which Plaintiff moves to seek his desired 20 relief, does not provide a private right of action. See Griffith v. Paran LLP, No. 21 221CV01314JAMCKDPS, 2021 WL 4123805, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2021), report and 22 recommendation vacated, No. 221CV01314JAMCKDPS, 2021 WL 4442881 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 23 2021) (citing People of State of California ex rel. McColgan v. Bruce, 129 F.2d 421, 424 (9th Cir. 24 3 The pertinent part of the statute reads as follows: 25 A judgment in an action for the recovery of money or property entered in any court of appeals, district court, bankruptcy court, or in the Court of International Trade may be registered by filing a certified copy of the 26 judgment in any other district or, with respect to the Court of International Trade, in any judicial district, when the judgment has become final by appeal or expiration of the time for appeal or when ordered by the 27 court that entered the judgment for good cause shown.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6 * * *
7 Michael Griffith, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01397-GMN-BNW
8 Plaintiffs, Order and Report & Recommendation re 9 v. ECF No. 1
10 Paran LLP,
11 Defendant.
12 13 Pro se plaintiff Detrick Curtis Conerly1 initiated this lawsuit on July 26, 2021, by filing an 14 application to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint. ECF No. 1. 15 Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to 16 prepay fees or costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the Court will grant his request to 17 proceed in forma pauperis at ECF No. 1. 18 The Court now screens the complaint at ECF No. 1-1. 19 I. Analysis 20 A. Screening Standard 21 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 22 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 23 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 24 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 25 26 1 Mr. Conerly initiated this case along with Michael Griffith. Mr. Griffith failed to comply with the Court’s 27 order to update his address. See ECF No. 6 at 1. As a result, the undersigned magistrate judge recommended that he be dismissed from the case. Id. Because Mr. Griffith did not object to the report and recommendation within the 1 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard 2 for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 3 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 4 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 5 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 6 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 7 his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 8 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 9 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of 10 material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler 11 Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 12 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff 13 must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 14 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. 15 But, unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro 16 se plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s 17 deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 18 B. Screening the Complaint 19 Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendant Paran LLP has failed to pay him and his former 20 co-plaintiff Michael Griffith any of the money stemming from a $104,880 judgment obtained by 21 Conerly and Griffith from a Pennsylvania state trial court. ECF No. 1-2 at 1. As a result, Plaintiff 22 seeks to enforce this alleged judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1738. Id. Of note, he states that this 23 Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, explaining that both Plaintiff and 24 Defendant are citizens of different states2 and the amount in controversy amounts to at least 25 $76,000. Id. 26 27
2 1 A state court judgment has “the same full faith and credit in every court within the United 2 States ... as [it has] by law or usage in the courts of such State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1738; see also Migra 3 v. Warren City School District Board of Education, 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984) (noting that it is 4 clearly established that federal courts are to give state court judgments full faith and credit). But 5 the case law makes clear that giving a state court’s judgment full faith and credit is not the same 6 as enforcing or registering that judgment in federal court. This is because the act of enforcement 7 or registration transforms the state court judgment into a federal judgment. Moreover, federal 8 courts generally lack the authority to enforce or register state court judgments. See 28 U.S.C. 9 § 1963.3 10 Plaintiff did not include a certified copy of the judgment. While there is a document titled 11 “Exemplified Record from Westmoreland County” that includes three different dollar amounts, 12 none of which exceed $150, this document simply appears to be a receipt of fees related to the 13 Pennsylvania state case. See ECF No. 1-2 at 4. That said, even had Plaintiff included a certified 14 copy, this Court lacks the authority to enforce such a judgment. This is because, as noted above, 15 28 U.S.C. § 1963 does not allow federal courts to enforce state-court judgments. See 16 Fox Painting Co. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 16 F.3d 115, 117 (6th Cir. 1994) (“Nothing in the 17 language of section 1963 grants authority to a district court to register judgments of any courts 18 other than other district courts or the Court of International Trade.”). 19 Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, the statute under which Plaintiff moves to seek his desired 20 relief, does not provide a private right of action. See Griffith v. Paran LLP, No. 21 221CV01314JAMCKDPS, 2021 WL 4123805, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2021), report and 22 recommendation vacated, No. 221CV01314JAMCKDPS, 2021 WL 4442881 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 23 2021) (citing People of State of California ex rel. McColgan v. Bruce, 129 F.2d 421, 424 (9th Cir. 24 3 The pertinent part of the statute reads as follows: 25 A judgment in an action for the recovery of money or property entered in any court of appeals, district court, bankruptcy court, or in the Court of International Trade may be registered by filing a certified copy of the 26 judgment in any other district or, with respect to the Court of International Trade, in any judicial district, when the judgment has become final by appeal or expiration of the time for appeal or when ordered by the 27 court that entered the judgment for good cause shown. Such a judgment entered in favor of the United States may be so registered any time after judgment is entered. A judgment so registered shall have the same effect 1 1942)) (“Neither the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution nor the corresponding 2 statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, is an independent basis for federal court jurisdiction, and neither 3 provides a private right of action.”). 4 The Court adds that Plaintiff has filed a multitude of (unsuccessful) cases in district courts 5 across the U.S., including California, Indiana, and Minnesota, attempting to enforce this 6 Pennsylvania state-court judgment.4 See, e.g., Griffith v. Paran LLP, 2021 WL 4123805, at *1. 7 Plaintiff also has attempted to enforce this state-court judgment through a petition for writ of 8 habeas corpus. See Conerly v. Paran LLP, No. 1:19-CV-00043-DCN, 2019 WL 3848781, at *1 9 (D. Idaho Aug. 14, 2019). 10 Accordingly, the Court recommends that this case be dismissed without leave to amend as 11 any attempt to amend the complaint would prove futile. See, e.g., Atkinson v. Kestell, 954 F. 12 Supp. 14, 15 n.2 (D.D.C. 1997) (holding that “[s]tate court judgments cannot be registered in” a 13 district court under § 1963)); See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under 14 Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are only required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can 15 possibly be saved. Courts are not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit 16 entirely.”). This is so because the Court lacks jurisdiction, and the statute under which Plaintiff 17 asserts his claim to enforce a state-court judgment—28 U.S.C. § 1738—does not provide for a 18 private right of action. See Griffith v. Paran LLP, 2021 WL 4123805, at *2. 19 II. Conclusion 20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in 21 forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must detach and separately file 23 Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 24 IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without 25 leave to amend. 26
27 4 The Court takes judicial notice of these other cases. See Fed. R. Evid. 201 (providing that courts can judicially notice “[o]fficial acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States” and “[f]acts and 1 || I Notice 2 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned 3 || to this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation 4 || may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being 5 || served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely 6 || objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 7 || 1157 (th Cir. 1991). 8 9 DATED: February 10, 2022. 10 wm la WOE | BRENDA WEKSLER 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28