Stevens v. State of Montana

D. Montana

Stevens v. State of Montana

DecidedNovember 8, 2023

Docket4:23-cv-00068

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Stevens v. State of Montana, (D. Mont. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

BRADLEY KIRK STEVENS, CV 23-68-GF-BMM-JTJ

Plaintiff,

vs. ORDER

STATE OF MONTANA,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Bradley Kirk Stevens has lodged a Complaint signed by Mary Ann Stevens (Doc. 2). He has also moved to proceed in forma pauperis, also signed by Mary Ann Stevens. (Doc. 1.) Stevens has checked the box on the Court’s form Complaint for federal question jurisdiction, but then, apparently, misapprehends its meaning by asking a literal question: why is this [crime] being charged through State Court? (Doc. 2-1.) The Clerk of Court cannot accept pleadings signed by anyone other than a plaintiff or an attorney properly admitted to this Court. Only an attorney admitted to the Bar may appear or file documents on behalf of someone else. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; see also Judiciary Act of 1789, § 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92 (1789); Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008); D. Mont. L.R. 83.8(a) (Dec. 1, 2022). Mary Ann Stevens is not an attorney properly admitted to this Court and cannot sign or file on behalf of Bradley Stevens. This obstacle could be overcome by requesting that Stevens sign his own pleading. However, this Court will not intervene in state court criminal proceedings, and Steven’s Complaint does not otherwise allege or state a claim for federal relief. Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 777, 781 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2001). As Stevens simply asks a state law question, the proper procedural remedy is dismissal of the federal action. AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the Court issues the following: ORDER 1. Stevens’s Lodged Complaint is dismissed, without prejudice. 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter and enter judgment accordingly. DATED this 8th day of November, 2023.

fz ) AIA. Wir | btu Brian Morris, Chief District Judge United States District Court

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

BRADLEY KIRK STEVENS, CV 23-68-GF-BMM-JTJ

Plaintiff,

vs. ORDER

STATE OF MONTANA,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Bradley Kirk Stevens has lodged a Complaint signed by Mary Ann Stevens (Doc. 2). He has also moved to proceed in forma pauperis, also signed by Mary Ann Stevens. (Doc. 1.) Stevens has checked the box on the Court’s form Complaint for federal question jurisdiction, but then, apparently, misapprehends its meaning by asking a literal question: why is this [crime] being charged through State Court? (Doc. 2-1.) The Clerk of Court cannot accept pleadings signed by anyone other than a plaintiff or an attorney properly admitted to this Court. Only an attorney admitted to the Bar may appear or file documents on behalf of someone else. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; see also Judiciary Act of 1789, § 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92 (1789); Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008); D. Mont. L.R. 83.8(a) (Dec. 1, 2022). Mary Ann Stevens is not an attorney properly admitted to this Court and cannot sign or file on behalf of Bradley Stevens. This obstacle could be overcome by requesting that Stevens sign his own pleading. However, this Court will not intervene in state court criminal proceedings, and Steven’s Complaint does not otherwise allege or state a claim for federal relief. Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 777, 781 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2001). As Stevens simply asks a state law question, the proper procedural remedy is dismissal of the federal action. AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the Court issues the following: ORDER 1. Stevens’s Lodged Complaint is dismissed, without prejudice. 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter and enter judgment accordingly. DATED this 8th day of November, 2023.

fz ) AIA. Wir | btu Brian Morris, Chief District Judge United States District Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Stevens v. State of Montana, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-state-of-montana-mtd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack