1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *
7 SEAN MITCHELL JR. Case No. 2:24-cv-01246-RFB-MDC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER
9 v.
10 TIMOTHY, et al.,
11 Defendants.
12 13 Before the Court for consideration are Plaintiff Sean Mitchell Jr.’s pending objections 14 (ECF Nos. 7, 8, 10) to orders issued by the Honorable Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III, United States 15 Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 4). For the reasons explained below, the Court overrules the objections 16 and instructs Mr. Mitchell to file a corrected in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application. 17 A district judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine most pretrial 18 matters pending before that court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The magistrate 19 judge’s order on such matters generally operates as a final determination. LR IB 1-3. Where a 20 party timely objects to the magistrate judge’s order, a district judge must review the order and “set 21 aside any part . . . that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. 22 § 636(b)(1)(A); LR IB 3-1(a). “Clear error occurs when 'the reviewing court on the entire record 23 is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Smith v. Clark 24 Cty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 950 (9th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). “An order is contrary to law when 25 it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Jadwin v. Cty. of 26 Kern, 767 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1110-11 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (cleaned up). 27 On July 10, 2024, Mr. Mitchell initiated this action by filing an IFP application and 28 proposed complaint. ECF No. 2. On July 12, 2024, Judge Couvillier determined that Mr. Mitchell’s 1 submission failed to use the proper IFP form and contained discrepancies. ECF No. 4. In light of 2 this, Judge Couvillier ordered Mr. Mitchell to file a long-form IFP application by Monday August 3 12, 2024 (“First Order”). Id. On July 24, 2024, Mr. Mitchell filed a submission styled “IFP Long 4 Form/Appeal” in which he objects to Judge Couvillier’s statement that “it appears that the plaintiff 5 is concealing information about his income” as “opinion based.” ECF No. 5. Mr. Mitchell detailed 6 certain factors impacting his financial status. Id. Mr. Mitchell also filed the instant objections, 7 which reads: 8 I apologize if I misread any information for completing any form. I am currently 9 suffering from a concussion, as I was hit by a car while I was a passenger on a bus on March 4th, 2024. This makes it hard for me to read as I can barely concentrate. 10 For the record, I object to line 14 of document 4 page 2 of 5, as it states “it appears that the plaintiff is concealing information about his income.” This is an opinion 11 based statement. I would also like to state that the dollar is dropping in value and 12 we are currently in inflation. I shouldn’t have to list my gross payments for the last two years. I am still lacking sufficient money to live at a standard which I consider 13 comfortable or normal in a society. I also have the right to self identify, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 14 15 ECF Nos. 7-8 (cleaned up). 16 On August 8, 2024, Judge Couvillier issued another Order (“Second Order”) finding, 17 among other things, that Mr. Mitchell’s “IFP Long Form/Appeal” should be construed as an 18 objection and that it failed to comply with the Court’s order that he filed a long-form IFP 19 application. ECF No. 9. Judge Couvillier ordered the Clerk of Court to send Mr. Mitchell a long- 20 form IFP application and for Mr. Mitchell to submit a completed application by September 6, 21 2024. Id. On August 19, 2024, Mr. Mitchell filed a submission styled “Complaint/Objections.” 22 ECF No. 10. In this submission, Mr. Mitchell argues “the Federal rules do not apply to me” and 23 that requiring him to complete an IFP form would be an act of discrimination. Id. 24 First, the Court considers Mr. Mitchell’s two identical objections to the First Order. Mr. 25 Mitchell objects to Judge Couvillier making an “opinion” that his affidavit contains discrepancies. 26 A Magistrate Judge is obliged to review the in forma pauperis application to ensure the petitioner 27 is unable to pay or give security for the costs of litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see also 28 Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960) (requiring evaluation of poverty “with 1 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.”); Adkins v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 2 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (stating that an affidavit is sufficient where it shows affiant cannot meet court 3 costs and “still be able to provide himself and [his] dependents with the necessities of life[.]”). 4 Indeed, federal courts have “broad discretion to deny a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in a 5 civil action.” O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616-17 (9th Cir. 1990). Judge Couvillier based 6 finding of a discrepancy on Mr. Mitchell’s sworn statements that he was homeless and only had 7 $291 of monthly income yet reported $565 in monthly expenses and no checking or savings 8 account. On independent review, the Court finds that Judge Couvillier’s finding was supported by 9 the facts stated in the affidavit and was reasonably relied upon to determine that there was a 10 discrepancy. In sum, the Court finds that Judge Couvillier’s First Order was neither clearly 11 erroneous nor contrary to law. Therefore, the objections are overruled. 12 Second, the Court construes Mr. Mitchell’s “Complaint/Objections” as an objection to 13 Judge Couvillier’s Second Order. Mr. Mitchell objects to the Court’s requirements and authority 14 over him. As a threshold matter, Mr. Mitchell alleges that as a “divine sovereign living justice” 15 and “Moorish American National” who does not “identify . . . by the legal definition of person.” 16 Courts have routinely rejected arguments based on this ideology as wholly frivolous. See, e.g., 17 United States v. Ward, 182 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 1999) (rejecting criminal defendant’s challenge to 18 his conviction based on argument that district court lacked jurisdiction over him because “he is not 19 a ‘person’ as defined by the United States Constitution.”); Bey v. State, 847 F.3d 559, 561 (7th 20 Cir. 2017) (“[H]e may be a Moor but—we emphasize, in the hope of staving off future such 21 frivolous litigation—he is not a sovereign citizen. He is a U.S. citizen and therefore unlike foreign 22 diplomats has no immunity from U.S. law.”). Thus, the Court finds that, notwithstanding Mr. 23 Mitchell’s statements, he is proceeding pro se in this matter. Even acting pro se, Mr. Mitchell is 24 still obliged to comply with all Court orders, local rules, federal rules—including deadlines. See, 25 e.g., Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 382 (9th Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *
7 SEAN MITCHELL JR. Case No. 2:24-cv-01246-RFB-MDC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER
9 v.
10 TIMOTHY, et al.,
11 Defendants.
12 13 Before the Court for consideration are Plaintiff Sean Mitchell Jr.’s pending objections 14 (ECF Nos. 7, 8, 10) to orders issued by the Honorable Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III, United States 15 Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 4). For the reasons explained below, the Court overrules the objections 16 and instructs Mr. Mitchell to file a corrected in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application. 17 A district judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine most pretrial 18 matters pending before that court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The magistrate 19 judge’s order on such matters generally operates as a final determination. LR IB 1-3. Where a 20 party timely objects to the magistrate judge’s order, a district judge must review the order and “set 21 aside any part . . . that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. 22 § 636(b)(1)(A); LR IB 3-1(a). “Clear error occurs when 'the reviewing court on the entire record 23 is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Smith v. Clark 24 Cty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 950 (9th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). “An order is contrary to law when 25 it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Jadwin v. Cty. of 26 Kern, 767 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1110-11 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (cleaned up). 27 On July 10, 2024, Mr. Mitchell initiated this action by filing an IFP application and 28 proposed complaint. ECF No. 2. On July 12, 2024, Judge Couvillier determined that Mr. Mitchell’s 1 submission failed to use the proper IFP form and contained discrepancies. ECF No. 4. In light of 2 this, Judge Couvillier ordered Mr. Mitchell to file a long-form IFP application by Monday August 3 12, 2024 (“First Order”). Id. On July 24, 2024, Mr. Mitchell filed a submission styled “IFP Long 4 Form/Appeal” in which he objects to Judge Couvillier’s statement that “it appears that the plaintiff 5 is concealing information about his income” as “opinion based.” ECF No. 5. Mr. Mitchell detailed 6 certain factors impacting his financial status. Id. Mr. Mitchell also filed the instant objections, 7 which reads: 8 I apologize if I misread any information for completing any form. I am currently 9 suffering from a concussion, as I was hit by a car while I was a passenger on a bus on March 4th, 2024. This makes it hard for me to read as I can barely concentrate. 10 For the record, I object to line 14 of document 4 page 2 of 5, as it states “it appears that the plaintiff is concealing information about his income.” This is an opinion 11 based statement. I would also like to state that the dollar is dropping in value and 12 we are currently in inflation. I shouldn’t have to list my gross payments for the last two years. I am still lacking sufficient money to live at a standard which I consider 13 comfortable or normal in a society. I also have the right to self identify, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 14 15 ECF Nos. 7-8 (cleaned up). 16 On August 8, 2024, Judge Couvillier issued another Order (“Second Order”) finding, 17 among other things, that Mr. Mitchell’s “IFP Long Form/Appeal” should be construed as an 18 objection and that it failed to comply with the Court’s order that he filed a long-form IFP 19 application. ECF No. 9. Judge Couvillier ordered the Clerk of Court to send Mr. Mitchell a long- 20 form IFP application and for Mr. Mitchell to submit a completed application by September 6, 21 2024. Id. On August 19, 2024, Mr. Mitchell filed a submission styled “Complaint/Objections.” 22 ECF No. 10. In this submission, Mr. Mitchell argues “the Federal rules do not apply to me” and 23 that requiring him to complete an IFP form would be an act of discrimination. Id. 24 First, the Court considers Mr. Mitchell’s two identical objections to the First Order. Mr. 25 Mitchell objects to Judge Couvillier making an “opinion” that his affidavit contains discrepancies. 26 A Magistrate Judge is obliged to review the in forma pauperis application to ensure the petitioner 27 is unable to pay or give security for the costs of litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see also 28 Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960) (requiring evaluation of poverty “with 1 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.”); Adkins v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 2 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (stating that an affidavit is sufficient where it shows affiant cannot meet court 3 costs and “still be able to provide himself and [his] dependents with the necessities of life[.]”). 4 Indeed, federal courts have “broad discretion to deny a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in a 5 civil action.” O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616-17 (9th Cir. 1990). Judge Couvillier based 6 finding of a discrepancy on Mr. Mitchell’s sworn statements that he was homeless and only had 7 $291 of monthly income yet reported $565 in monthly expenses and no checking or savings 8 account. On independent review, the Court finds that Judge Couvillier’s finding was supported by 9 the facts stated in the affidavit and was reasonably relied upon to determine that there was a 10 discrepancy. In sum, the Court finds that Judge Couvillier’s First Order was neither clearly 11 erroneous nor contrary to law. Therefore, the objections are overruled. 12 Second, the Court construes Mr. Mitchell’s “Complaint/Objections” as an objection to 13 Judge Couvillier’s Second Order. Mr. Mitchell objects to the Court’s requirements and authority 14 over him. As a threshold matter, Mr. Mitchell alleges that as a “divine sovereign living justice” 15 and “Moorish American National” who does not “identify . . . by the legal definition of person.” 16 Courts have routinely rejected arguments based on this ideology as wholly frivolous. See, e.g., 17 United States v. Ward, 182 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 1999) (rejecting criminal defendant’s challenge to 18 his conviction based on argument that district court lacked jurisdiction over him because “he is not 19 a ‘person’ as defined by the United States Constitution.”); Bey v. State, 847 F.3d 559, 561 (7th 20 Cir. 2017) (“[H]e may be a Moor but—we emphasize, in the hope of staving off future such 21 frivolous litigation—he is not a sovereign citizen. He is a U.S. citizen and therefore unlike foreign 22 diplomats has no immunity from U.S. law.”). Thus, the Court finds that, notwithstanding Mr. 23 Mitchell’s statements, he is proceeding pro se in this matter. Even acting pro se, Mr. Mitchell is 24 still obliged to comply with all Court orders, local rules, federal rules—including deadlines. See, 25 e.g., Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 382 (9th Cir. 1997) (“pro se litigants are 26 not excused from following court rules”); United States v. Warren, 610 F.2d 680, 684 n.8 (9th Cir. 27 1980) (federal courts have jurisdiction over any party who appears before it, regardless of how 28 appearance is effected). For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Judge Couvillier properly 1 | found jurisdiction over Mr. Mitchell and the objection is overruled. 2 Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Sean Mitchell Jr.’s pending objections (ECF Nos. 7, 8, 10) are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is instructed to restyle 4| the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) as an objection on the docket. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Sean Mitchell Jr. will either file a long-form 6 | informa pauperis application, on the court-approved long-form application (which is available at 7 | https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court-information/forms), or pay the full filing fee on or before 8 | April 25,2025. The failure to do so will result in the summary dismissal of this action without 9 | hearing or notice with prejudice. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will provide Plaintiff Sean Mitchell 11 | Jr. with a physical copy of the Court’s Order and a physical copy of the long-form in forma 12 | pauperis application by U.S postage. 13 DATED: March 30, 2025. 15 16 7 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-4-