Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Campbell v. District Attorney of Clark County

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 30, 2017

NATHAN CAMPBELL, Plaintiff,
v.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF CLARK COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          C. W. HOFFMAN, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Presently before the court is Plaintiff Nathan Campbell Sr.'s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 5), filed on November 16, 2015.

         Also before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Writ of Mandamus[1] (ECF No. 8), filed on March 8, 2016.

         Also before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Review[2] (ECF No. 10), filed on September 8, 2016.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff initiated this case by sending a letter to the Clerk of Court stating that he was proceeding pro se and by filing a motion requesting mandamus relief related to “stand your ground law” and other issues. (Initiating Docs. (ECF No. 1); Mot. (ECF No. 2).) In his motion for mandamus relief, Plaintiff also stated that he was “in custody being intimidated and was beaten [at] intake by a sgt. staff . . . .” (Mot. (ECF No. 2) at 2.) The court therefore understood Plaintiff to possibly be seeking to file a civil rights complaint in addition to requesting mandamus relief related to various issues. (Order (ECF No. 3) at 1.) Based on the return address and prisoner identification number provided on the envelope in which Plaintiff's motion was mailed, it appeared to the court that Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Clark County Detention Center. (Id.) Given that Plaintiff did not submit a complaint, a filing fee, or an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the court denied Plaintiff's motion and ordered him to file a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id. at 2.) Additionally, the court advised Plaintiff that Rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolished writs of mandamus in federal district court and that “[r]elief previously available through them may be obtained by appropriate action or motion” under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) The court therefore stated that if Plaintiff decided to move forward with his case, he must not file motions styled as motions for mandamus relief. (Id.)

         Plaintiff now requests to proceed in forma pauperis and has filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging claims for physical assault, verbal discrimination, and denial of due process against the Nevada Department of Corrections and Sheriff Joe Lumbardo [sic] related to events that occurred at the Clark County Detention Center. (Appl. to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 5); Compl. (ECF No. 5-1).) Plaintiff also filed two motions, one seeking mandamus relief to prevent forced medication and reiterating some of Plaintiff's previous requests regarding “stand your ground” law, and another seeking judicial review regarding prosecutorial misconduct. (ECF Nos. 8, 10.) Plaintiff also filed a notice of change of address (ECF No. 9) to what appears to be a residential address, thus, it is unclear whether Plaintiff remains incarcerated or has been released.

         II. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil action in district court. Additionally, based on the Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, effective June 1, 2016, a $50.00 administrative fee applies for filing a civil action in district court, making the total filing fee $400.00. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the court may authorize the commencement of a civil case “without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor” if a person submits an affidavit including a statement of all assets that demonstrates the person is unable to pay the fees or give security for them. The procedure for seeking in forma pauperis status in this district is governed by Local Special Rule (“LSR”) 1-1, which provides that:

Any person who is unable to prepay the fees in a civil case may apply to the court for authority to proceed in forma pauperis. The application must be made on the form provided by the court and must include a financial affidavit disclosing the applicant's income, assets, expenses, and liabilities.

Additionally, under LRS 1-2, an inmate must:

simultaneously submit a certificate from the institution certifying the amount of funds currently held in the applicant's trust account at the institution and the net deposits in the applicant's account for the six months prior to the date of submission of the application. If the applicant has been at the institution for fewer than six months, the certificate must show the account's activity for this shortened period.

         Here, Plaintiff submitted the application and affidavit required to show he is unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. There are several deficiencies in his application, however, that require the court to deny the application. The acknowledgment page of the application is not dated and the portion that requires Plaintiff to declare under the penalty of perjury that the application is true and correct is not dated and does not state the location where it was signed. (Appl. to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 5) at 3.) Although Plaintiff includes the required financial certificate and a copy of his inmate balance history report, the financial certificate was not completed or signed by an authorized officer of institution in contravention of LSR 1-2. (See Id . at 4-5.)

         Even if the application did not have these deficiencies, based on Plaintiff's substantive responses to the financial questions, the court is unable to evaluate whether Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of commencing this case. In response to question one regarding his salary or wages per month, Plaintiff states “$1, 00000 $2500 @ Showcase, Required net @ $100, 000 yr. Self-employment reestablished, 4-4-2012-2015 (ASCAP).” (Id. at 1.) In response to question two regarding other forms of income, he checks the “yes” boxes indicating that he has received money from a business, profession or other form of self-employment, from gifts or inheritances, and from other sources. (Id. at 1-2.) But in the following section where he is required to elaborate on these “yes” responses, he states “[e]ach category received not payed by private sectors. CEO Sylvester Turner. Bonded LV, NV Liscense [sic] LLC.” (Id. at 2.) He further states that he has placed property, assets, and money in another person's name. (Id.) He states that he does not have money in bank accounts or own real estate or other valuable property. (Id.) While ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.