Newton v. Akkad

D. Nevada

Newton v. Akkad

DecidedFebruary 14, 2022

Docket2:20-cv-01402

StatusUnknown

This text of Newton v. Akkad (Newton v. Akkad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Newton v. Akkad, (D. Nev. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 ANTHONY NEWTON, Case No. 2:20-cv-01402-JAD-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 T. AKKAD et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s letter to the Court titled “Motion Asking for My Funds 11 to be Returned/Motion Informing Court I Received Documents and USM-285 Form.” ECF No. 14. 12 This request apparently arises from Plaintiff’s Motion for Application to Proceed in forma pauperis 13 (ECF No. 1), which the Court granted on June 29, 2021. A review of the docket in this case shows 14 that subsequent to the Order granting Plaintiff in forma pauperis status no money was paid on this 15 action and, thus, the $177 Plaintiff claims was taken by Clark County Detention Center (“CCDC”) 16 from Plaintiff’s account has no relationship to this case. ECF No. 14 at 2. 17 Further, Defendant’s letter does not identify any federally protected right that he claims has 18 been violated. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power 19 authorized by Constitution and statute.” United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008), 20 quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). There is no provision in 21 the in forma pauperis statute that allows the Court to compel CCDC to return funds to Plaintiff. 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915. Moreover, CCDC is no longer a party to this action and the Court lacks jurisdiction 23 to order CCDC to return the funds. See ECF No. 4 (dismissing Defendant Clark County Detention 24 Center with prejudice). 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 14) is 26 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion Asking for My Funds to be Returned is 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order, as well 2 as ECF Nos. 3, 5, 8, and 9-11 to Plaintiff at the following address, which was provided by him:

3 Anthony Newton #1502184 4 333 S. Casino Center Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89101 5 6 This is a one-time accommodation to Plaintiff. 7 Dated this 14th day of February, 2022. 8 9

10 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 ANTHONY NEWTON, Case No. 2:20-cv-01402-JAD-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 T. AKKAD et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s letter to the Court titled “Motion Asking for My Funds 11 to be Returned/Motion Informing Court I Received Documents and USM-285 Form.” ECF No. 14. 12 This request apparently arises from Plaintiff’s Motion for Application to Proceed in forma pauperis 13 (ECF No. 1), which the Court granted on June 29, 2021. A review of the docket in this case shows 14 that subsequent to the Order granting Plaintiff in forma pauperis status no money was paid on this 15 action and, thus, the $177 Plaintiff claims was taken by Clark County Detention Center (“CCDC”) 16 from Plaintiff’s account has no relationship to this case. ECF No. 14 at 2. 17 Further, Defendant’s letter does not identify any federally protected right that he claims has 18 been violated. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power 19 authorized by Constitution and statute.” United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008), 20 quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). There is no provision in 21 the in forma pauperis statute that allows the Court to compel CCDC to return funds to Plaintiff. 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915. Moreover, CCDC is no longer a party to this action and the Court lacks jurisdiction 23 to order CCDC to return the funds. See ECF No. 4 (dismissing Defendant Clark County Detention 24 Center with prejudice). 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 14) is 26 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion Asking for My Funds to be Returned is 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order, as well 2 as ECF Nos. 3, 5, 8, and 9-11 to Plaintiff at the following address, which was provided by him:

3 Anthony Newton #1502184 4 333 S. Casino Center Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89101 5 6 This is a one-time accommodation to Plaintiff. 7 Dated this 14th day of February, 2022. 8 9

10 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Newton v. Akkad, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newton-v-akkad-nvd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack