Saintal-Bowman v. 8th Judicial District Court

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01243
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 PRISCELLA SAINTAL-BOWMAN, Case No. 2:25-cv-01243-CDS-EJY

5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 v.

7 8TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Filed with the Court are Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) and financial certificate (ECF 11 No. 1-2), but no application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Plaintiff also did not pay the 12 filing fee to commence a civil action. While the Court would ordinarily provide Plaintiff an 13 opportunity to file a compliant IFP application or pay the filing fee, here, the Complaint seeks relief 14 against immune defendants. For this reason the Court finds extending Plaintiff the opportunity to 15 file an IFP application is unwarranted. This Court recommends this matter be dismissed sua sponte 16 and without further notice to Plaintiff as she “cannot possibly win relief.” Sparling v. Hoffman 17 Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988).1 18 I. Screening Standard Applicable to this Case 19 When considering a pro se plaintiff’s civil rights complaint, courts generally are required to 20 identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fails to state a 21 claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 22 from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 23 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). However, a federal court 24 must dismiss a claim if the action “is frivolous or malicious[,] fails to state a claim on which relief 25 may be granted[,] or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28

26 1 The Court notes it located nine other actions Plaintiff appears to have filed, six of which were summarily dismissed. 2:13-cv-1293 JCM-CWH; 2:13-cv-1084 JCM-PAL; 2:15-cv-2378 GMN-NJK; 2:15-cv-2460 (dismissed on 27 Motion to Dismiss by Defendants); 2:21-cv-1271 GMN-NJK (dismissed by Plaintiff); and 2:25-cv-00369 ART-NJK. 1 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). All or part of a complaint may be dismissed sua sponte if the plaintiff’s claims 2 lack an arguable basis either in law or in fact. This includes claims based on legal conclusions that 3 are untenable (e.g., claims against defendants who are immune from suit or claims of infringement 4 of a legal interest which clearly does not exist), as well as claims based on fanciful factual allegations 5 (e.g., fantastic or delusional scenarios). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989); 6 McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 II. Plaintiff’s Complaint Asserts Claims Against Immune Defendants 8 To the extent Plaintiff’s Complaint is decipherable, it appears she alleges various failures by 9 Defendants arising from tasks directly related to or arising from judicial proceedings in the Eighth 10 Judicial District Court. ECF No. 1-1 at 14-17. All claims for relief pertain to alleged actions or 11 failure to act in accordance with rules (presumable the Nevada Rules of Criminal Procedure), and 12 constitutional principles of due process, equal protection, and access to the court. Id. 42 U.S.C. § 13 1983 provides the vehicle for a plaintiff to seek relief under each of the constitutional provisions 14 Plaintiff appears to identify. See McDay v. Lake Ponderay School Dist., Case No. 2:15-cv-00030- 15 REB, 2015 WL 13778740, at *4 (D. Id. Nov. 10, 2015); Haynes v. City and County of San Francisco, 16 Case No. C 13-1567 MEJ, 2013 WL 3456932, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2013). 17 Defendant, the Eighth Judicial District Court, is an arm of the State. Nevada has eleven 18 judicial districts making up the state’s general jurisdiction courts. These district courts serve 19 Nevada’s 17 counties. The 11 Judicial Districts are served by 82 District Court judges who serve 20 their respective counties, but have jurisdiction to serve in any district court in the state. 21 http://nvcourts.gov/supreme/court_information/about_the_nevada_judiciary. Moreover, “the court 22 serves as the trial court for Nevada and is part of the judicial branch of state government as set forth 23 by the Nevada Constitution.” http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/general. As an arm of the State of 24 Nevada, the Eighth Judicial District Court is immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Foley v. 25 Graham, Case No. 2:16-cv-1871-JAD-VCF, 2016 WL 11185427, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 13, 2016).2

26 2 Although Plaintiff does not name any federal judge associated with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada as a defendant, Plaintiff’s pleading mentions cases she previously filed in this Court, one judge who is a member 27 of the federal bench, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 11, 15. Federal judges are absolutely immune from 1 Plaintiff’s claims against the Eighth Judicial District Court clerks fail as these defendants are 2 also immune from suit. Mullis, 828 F.2d at 1390 (“[c]ourt clerks have absolute quasi-judicial 3 immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they perform tasks that are an integral part 4 of the judicial process”) citing Morrison v. Jones, 607 F.2d 1269, 1273 (9th Cir. 1979) (§ 1983 case), 5 cert. denied, 445 U.S. 962 (1980); Shipp v. Todd, 568 F.2d 133, 134 (9th Cir. 1978) (same); Stewart 6 v. Minnick, 409 F.2d 826 (9th Cir. 1969) (same) (court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity 7 from a § 1983 action for damages when they perform tasks integral to the judicial process). 8 For the reasons stated above, the Court recommends dismissal with prejudice of all claims 9 alleged against the Eighth Judicial District Court and the three named court clerks as Plaintiff cannot 10 state claims for relief against these defendants. Meza v. Lee, 669 F.Supp. 325, 328 (D. Nev. 1987). 11 III. Recommendation 12 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed in 13 its entirety and with prejudice as Plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief against a Nevada state court 14 or clerks associated with that court. 15 Dated this 14th day of July, 2025. 16

17 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief. Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996); Mullis v. U.S. 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