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.

Young v. State

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 2, 2017

MICHAEL RAY YOUNG, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA, Defendant.

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 1) AND COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1-1)

          CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before the Court are Plaintiff Michael Ray Young's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and complaint (ECF No. 1-1). For the reasons stated below, Young's in forma pauperis application is granted. For the reasons stated below, however, Young's claims against Officer Kaylor and Officer Dyer in their individual capacities brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985 must be dismissed with leave to amend.[1]

         Background

         This is a civil rights violation case. Young alleges that two State of Nevada Parole and Probation Officers violated his civil rights when they extradited him from Arkansas to Las Vegas pursuant to a warrant that was baseless.

         Young alleges that “Officers” came to his Little Rock, Arkansas home in February 2015, stating that they had a warrant for him from Las Vegas, Nevada for a probation violation. ECF No. 1-1 at 1. The contents of that warrant stated, according to Young, that it was for a violation of the conditions imposed on him pursuant to the program of lifetime supervision for the period between December 2012 and December 2014 under Nevada Revised Statute 213.1243. Id. Young asserts that he was not on lifetime supervision at that time because there was no such agreement between 2012 and 2014. Id. at 2. This, Young argues, “makes the warrant baseless and a false arrest as well as … civil rights violations.” Id. Young states that at that time he was on probation being supervised by the Probation and Parole division of the State of Arkansas. ECF No. 1-1 at 2. He also states that the Nevada Parole and Probation Division

was given two Court appearances two opportunities to come to Court to make a verbal objection to ORDERING me back to Arkansas; and the suspension of the Life Time Suspension Sentence at that time they should have send a representative for opposition did not happen. However, after being in Little Rock less than 10 days they attempted a warrant wasting all our time and money who was that?

Id. at 3.[2]

         After being extradited to Las Vegas, Nevada, Young asserts that “they dismissed a charge without clearly stating what [he] did to be extradited” leaving him stranded in Nevada away from his family and home in Arkansas. Id. at 8. Young also notes a few past instances where he claims to have been “harassed” by the Parole and Probation Division of Nevada. Id. at 3-4. In particular, Young posits that in 2002, the Parole and Probation Division of Nevada “warranted and arrested me from CA, even with a signed court order that I could travel to CA.” Id. at 4. Young claims that since February 2015 to the present Officer Kaylor and Officer Dyer will not allow him to leave Nevada. Id. Young brought suit against Officer Kaylor and Officer Dyer in April 2017 claiming that they have violated his civil rights.[3]

         Discussion

         Young's filings present two questions for this Court: (1) whether Young may proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and (2) whether Young's complaint states a plausible claim for relief. Each is discussed below.

         I. InFormaPauperis

         Young's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) permits a plaintiff to bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or security thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff's “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” Under § 1915(a)(1), Young submitted a financial affidavit. ECF No. 1. According to the affidavit, Turner has no source of income. Id. Young's application to proceed in forma pauperis is, therefore, granted.

         II. Screening the Complaint

         Because the Court granted Young's application to proceed in forma pauperis, it must review Young's complaint to determine whether the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a ...


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.