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.

Anderson v. Eighth Judicial District Court

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 20, 2019

BLAKE L. ANDERSON, Petitioner,
v.
EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, et al., Respondents.

          ORDER

          MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This action brought by Blake Anderson (“Petitioner” or “Anderson”) comes before the Court for initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Anderson has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 against the State of Nevada and its Eight Judicial District Court seeking to overturn a judgment of conviction entered in Nevada state district court. (ECF No. 1.) A filing fee has been paid.[1] Following initial review, the Court concludes that Anderson's papers are subject to multiple substantial defects.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Eleventh Amendment Immunity

         First, a federal district court does not have jurisdiction over an action brought against the State of Nevada or the Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada. Petitioner may not proceed directly against the State of Nevada or an arm of the State - such as the state district court - in federal court due to the state sovereign immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment. E.g., O'Connor v. State of Nevada, 686 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1982) (state district court). State sovereign immunity bars an action against the state or an arm of the state in federal court regardless of the relief sought. E.g., Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 101-02 (1984).

         B. No Appellate Jurisdiction Over the State Courts

         Second, a federal district court does not have appellate jurisdiction over a state court, whether by direct appeal, mandamus, prohibition, and/or an exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. See, e.g., Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Demos v. United States District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal court of appeals did not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court). If Petitioner wants to seek collateral review of his conviction in federal court, he must file a timely petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, not a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition under 28 U.S.C. § 1651.[2]

         C. Heck Bar

         Third, to the extent that Petitioner challenges his judgment of conviction other than through a habeas petition, the civil action is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). An inmate in custody pursuant to a judgment of conviction may not pursue claims that necessarily challenge the validity of that conviction in a federal civil action other than in a federal habeas action. Id.

         D. Opportunity to Recharacterize and Amend

         Given the multiple substantial defects presented, the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition will be dismissed without prejudice, but without entry of final judgment. Anderson will have 30 days within which to recharacterize his request for relief and file an amended petition that, inter alia: (a) instead seeks a writ of habeas corpus; (b) is filed on the Court's required § 2254 petition form; and (c) names his immediate physical custodian, i.e., the warden of his facility, as a respondent.

         Anderson should note that if he - despite the dismissal of his petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition - tries to simply use the habeas petition form as a means to pursue instead a mandamus petition, [3] final judgment will be entered dismissing this action, for the reasons assigned herein. Anderson's continuing efforts, across multiple actions, to pursue a petition for a writ of mandamus by this Court directed to the state courts are completely frivolous. His only ...


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.