Muric-Dorado v. LVMPD

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 29, 2019
• Docket: 2:18-cv-01184
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 RAMON MURIC-DORADO, Case No. 2:18-cv-01184-JCM-GWF

4 Plaintiff ORDER

5 v.

6 LVMPD et al.,

7 Defendants

8 9 10 Presently before the court is the matter of Muric-Dorado v. LVMPD et al, case no. 11 2:18-cv-01184-JCM-GWF. 12 Pro se plaintiff Ramon Muric-Dorado (“plaintiff”) initiated the instant prisoner’s civil 13 rights action on June 28, 2018, alleging numerous, on-going deprivations of his 14 constitutional rights by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”), its 15 officers, the Clark County Detention Center (“CCDC”), its officers, and various other 16 individuals and organizations. (ECF No. 1). 17 Thereafter, on July 24, 2019, plaintiff filed two identical motions with different 18 titles—one requesting a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and the other requesting a 19 preliminary injunction against defendants on a matter unrelated to any of the underlying 20 claims in this case. (ECF Nos. 17, 18). 21 Through his motions for TRO and preliminary injunction, plaintiff seeks to enforce 22 a January 14, 2019, state court order directing CCDC to allow plaintiff to see an 23 optometrist and obtain glasses for him, if necessary. 1 Id. Plaintiff alleges that, as of the 24 date of his motions, CCDC has failed to provide him with the prescription glasses that he 25 needs. Id. 26 In addition to the fact that the relief plaintiff requests relates to a matter that is 27 28 1 Plaintiff has attached a copy of the state court’s order granting his ex parte motion to the instant motions for TRO and preliminary injunction. See (ECF Nos. 17, 18). wholly unrelated to the underlying claims in this case, plaintiff's motion must be denied forlack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits a federal district 3 court from enforcing a state court order against state officials. Pennhurst State School & 4| Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984) (“On the contrary, it is difficult to think of a 5 | greater intrusion on state sovereignty than when a federal court instructs state officials on 6 | how to conform their conduct to state law. Such a result conflicts directly with the 7 | principles of federalism that underlie the Eleventh Amendment.”). See also Labertew v. 8| Langemeier, 846 F.3d 1028, 1033 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Rule 69 [governing execution of 9} judgments] is not available to enforce state court judgments in federal court.”). 10 Therefore, plaintiff must return to state court to obtain the relief that he is seeking. 11 | Plaintiff's motions are denied. 12 Accordingly, 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff's motion for 14 preliminary injunction (ECF No. 17) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for TRO (ECF No. 18) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 DATED July 29, 2019. bttus ©. Malan 20 UNITED\STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-