John Anthony Moriarty Prendeville v. The Honorable Natalie M. Cox, United States Bankruptcy Judge, District of Nevada

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 JOHN ANTHONY MORIARTY Case No. 2:26-cv-00298-CDS-EJY PRENDEVILLE, 5 Petitioner, ORDER 6 AND v. 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THE HONORABLE NATALIE M. COX, 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE, DISTRICT OF NEVADA, 9 Respondent. 10 11 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), 12 which is complete (ECF No. 1), and Petitioner’s Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus (ECF 13 No. 1-1). Because the Court lacks the authority to rule on the requested relief, the undersigned 14 recommends the Petition be dismissed with prejudice. 15 I. Screening Standard 16 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 17 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 18 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted 19 or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 20 Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for failure to state 21 a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 22 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, 23 accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 24 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only dismiss them “if it 25 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would 26 entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting id.). 27 1 II. Discussion 2 Plaintiff seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the bankruptcy court to “rule on multiple long- 3 pending, dispositive motion.” ECF No. 1-1 at 1. Petitioner is currently involved in bankruptcy 4 proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada and a nonjudicial 5 trustee sale of Petitioner’s home is set to occur on February 27, 2026. Id. Although a hearing was 6 set for February 11, 2026, Petitioner says the hearing will not address motions concerning the legality 7 of the trustee sale. Id. at 2-3. Because a foreclosure sale is set to occur before the bankruptcy court 8 has ruled upon the legality of the sale, Petitioner argues that mandamus relief is warranted to prevent 9 irreversible harm. Id. at 8. 10 However, this Court lacks authority to compel the result Petitioner is seeking. Long standing 11 case law makes clear that “[a] district court lacks authority to issue a writ of mandamus to another 12 district court.” Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987), 13 cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1040 (1988) (citing Lewis v. Green, 629 F.Suppp. 546, 553 (D.D.C. 1986)). 14 Thus, this Court lacks authority to issue a writ to the bankruptcy court. See Ayrs v. Greenwald, 21 15 F.3d 1111, 1994 WL 12715, at *1 (9th Cir. 1994) (unpublished); Crowley v. U.S. Bankr. Ct., Dist. 16 of Nevada, Case No. 3:12-cv-647-RCJ-VPC, 2012 WL 6513149, at *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 12, 2012). 17 III. Order 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition (ECF No. 1-1) be filed on the docket. 21 IV. Recommendation 22 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Emergency Petition for Writ of 23 Mandamus (ECF No. [1-1]) be dismissed with prejudice. 24 Dated this 13th day of February, 2026.

26 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 NOTICE 2 Under Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be in 3 writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court holds 4 the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections 5 within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). The Ninth Circuit also held 6 that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and 7 brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal 8 factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 9 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27