Robert Sturgis and Matthew Travis Houston v. James Dzurenda, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 6, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01265
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Robert Sturgis, and Matthew Travis Houston, Case No.: 2:25-cv-01265-APG-BNW

4 Plaintiffs Order Dismissing Plaintiff Houston from this Action and Instructing Remaining 5 v. Plaintiff How to Proceed

6 James Dzurenda, et al., [ECF No. 1]

7 Defendants

8 I. DISCUSSION 9 Robert Sturgis initiated this case with an incomplete application to proceed in forma 10 pauperis and a document titled declaration/affidavit for class action suit that appeared to have 11 been prepared by another inmate named Mathew Travis Houston. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. The 12 magistrate judge directed Sturgis to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis as 13 well as a complaint. ECF No. 3. 14 In response, Matthew Houston filed a complaint listing himself and Mathew Sturgis as 15 plaintiffs, and he filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis for himself to which he added 16 Robert Sturgis’s name. ECF Nos. 4, 5. In both documents Houston stated that Sturgis had given 17 him “signatory consent.” Id. 18 I now address Houston’s vexatious litigant status, explain why a pro se inmate cannot 19 sign on another litigant’s behalf, dismiss Houston from the case, and give Sturgis an extension to 20 file his own complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. 21 A. Houston is a vexatious litigant. 22 As he is aware, Houston is subject to a vexatious litigant pre-filing order issued by Judge 23 Dorsey. See Houston v. Encore Event Technologies, et al., 2:22-cv-01740-JAD-EJY, ECF No. 1 30. Under that order, before Houston can file a new action in this court “using any pages he has 2 already filed in another case,” he must satisfy three conditions: 3 • Apply to the Chief Judge of this district for leave to file the document by submitting to the clerk’s office an application bearing the title “Application to 4 Chief District Judge Seeking Leave to File.” • That application must be supported by a declaration from Houston, made 5 under penalty of perjury, stating that: (1) the matters asserted in the new complaint or petition are different from those asserted in the actions he has 6 previously filed in this district; (2) the new claim or claims are not frivolous or made in bad faith; (3) he has conducted a reasonable investigation of the facts and 7 such investigation supports the claim or claims. • Houston must attach a copy of [Judge Dorsey’s] order to any such 8 application.

9 Id. at 8. Under that order, “the Clerk of Court is authorized to reject, refuse to file, and discard 10 any new case-commencement document submitted without prior compliance with this order.” Id. 11 at 9. 12 The declaration/affidavit for class action suit filed to initiate this case was previously 13 filed in some of Houston’s other cases. Compare ECF No. 1-1 with Houston v. State of Nevada 14 3:25-cv-00053-ART-CSD ECF No. 6 at 12-15 and Houston v. Dzurenda 3:25-cv-00027-ART- 15 CSD at ECF No. 5. Houston did not make any attempt to comply with the pre-filing order. 16 Instead, he attempted to bypass the pre-filing requirements by filing this lawsuit with another 17 inmate who has not been deemed a vexatious litigant as the lead plaintiff. Because Houston has 18 not complied with the pre-filing order, I dismiss or deny all documents filed by Houston and 19 those filed on his behalf without prejudice. Additionally, I dismiss Houston from this action 20 without prejudice for failing to comply with the pre-filing order requirements. 21 B. Pro se inmates must sign document themselves. 22 It is unlawful for a person to practice law in Nevada unless that person is an “active 23 member of the State Bar of Nevada or otherwise authorized to practice law in this state pursuant 1 to the rules of the Supreme Court.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.285(1)(a). It is well-established in both 2 Nevada state courts and the federal courts that an individual may represent himself or herself in 3 court but there is no rule or statue that permits a non-attorney to represent any other person in 4 court. See Guerin v. Guerin, 993 P.2d 1256, 1258 (Nev. 2000) (holding that “[a]lthough an

5 individual is entitled to represent himself or herself in the district court, see SCR 44, no rule or 6 statute permits a non-attorney to represent any other person, a company, a trust, or any other 7 entity in the district courts or in this court”); 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (providing that pro se litigants 8 have the right to plead and conduct their own cases personally); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 9 1103, 1105 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that “a non-attorney may appear only in her own behalf”). 10 As such, if an inmate intends to proceed pro se in this action, each individual inmate must sign 11 his or her name on each document submitted to the court. Inmates may not give “signatory 12 consent” to other pro se inmates to litigate cases for them. Thus, Sturgis must personally sign 13 any documents filed on his behalf. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). 14 C. Sturgis may continue with this lawsuit.

15 Because Sturgis is not subject to vexatious litigant pre-filing orders he may proceed with 16 this lawsuit if he so chooses. But before he can proceed, Sturgis will have to satisfy the matter of 17 the filing fee and file a complaint. The magistrate judge’s order required Sturgis to file an 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis, and a complaint by September 22, 2025, which Sturgis 19 failed to do. Because Sturgis may have been confused about whether Houston could submit 20 documents on his behalf, I will give Sturgis a one-time extension to comply with the magistrate 21 judge’s order. If he wishes to continue this case, Sturgis must file a complete application to 22 proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the $405 filing fee in full, and file a complaint by November 23 3, 2025. 1 II. CONCLUSION 2 I THEREFORE ORDER that plaintiff Matthew Travis Houston is dismissed without 3 prejudice from this case for failing to comply with this court’s vexatious litigant pre-filing order. 4 I FURTHER ORDER that the complaint that Houston filed (ECF No. 4) is dismissed

5 without prejudice, and the application to proceed in forma pauperis that Houston filed (ECF No. 6 5) is denied without prejudice. 7 I FURTHER ORDER that plaintiff Robert Sturgis has until November 3, 2025, to either 8 pay the full $405 filing fee or file fully complete individual applications to proceed in forma 9 pauperis with all three required documents: (1) a completed application with the inmate’s two 10 signatures on page 3, (2) a completed financial certificate that is signed both by the inmate and 11 the prison or jail official, and (3) a copy of the inmate’s trust fund account statement for the 12 previous six-month period. 13 I FURTHER ORDER that plaintiff Robert Sturgis has until November 3, 2025, to file a 14 complaint pertaining solely to whatever claims he wishes to bring in this case.

15 Sturgis is cautioned that this action will be subject to dismissal without prejudice if he 16 fails to timely comply with this order. A dismissal without prejudice allows Sturgis to refile the 17 case with the court, under a new case number, when he can file a complete application to 18 proceed in forma pauperis or pay the required filing fee and submit a proper complaint. 19 The Clerk of the Court will send Robert Sturgis: (1) the approved form for filing a § 1983 20 complaint with instructions; (2) a copy of the initiating documents and the complaint filed by 21 / / / / 22 / / / / 23 1] Houston (ECF Nos. 1, 4); and (3) the approved form application to proceed in forma pauperis for an inmate and instructions for the same. 3 Dated: October 6, 2025 4 — GA Andrew P. Gordon 5 Chief United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23