Opinion
3:22-cv-00221-MMD-CLB
01-31-2023
MITCHELL KEITH GOODRUM, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
I. SUMMARY
Pro se Plaintiff Mitchell Keith Goodrum appears to be attempting to sue the state court judge who presided over a criminal case in which he was the defendant for purported bias. (ECF No. 1-1 at 1, 5-53.) Before the Court is the Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin, recommending the Court dismiss this case without prejudice because Plaintiff did not timely pay the filing fee or complete an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”), contrary to a prior order ordering him to do so. (ECF No. 4.) Goodrum filed an objection (ECF No. 5), and then a motion to stay (ECF No. 6) and a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 7), both generally contending that prison officials took a box of legal documents from him. As further explained below, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice because Goodrum did not properly initiate it or persuasively explain why he did not follow Judge Baldwin's order.
II. BACKGROUND
Goodrum initiated this action by filing a document styled as a ‘Motion To Move Case No. 22-10DC-0019 from Tenth Judicial District Court to U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.' (ECF No. 1-1 at 1.) He did not pay the filing fee or attach a completed IFP Application at the time he filed this initiating document. He instead attached a copy of a state-court complaint. (Id. at 5-53.) Judge Baldwin ordered him to pay the filing fee or a completed IFP Application by September 30, 2022, and warned him she would dismiss the case if he did not timely comply. (ECF No. 3.) Goodrum did not timely comply, so Judge Baldwin issued the R&R on October 7, 2022, recommending the case be dismissed without prejudice-and giving him until October 21, 2022, to file an objection. (ECF No. 4.)
Goodrum filed his objection on October 11, 2022. (ECF No. 5.) In it, Goodrum asks that his case not be dismissed, states that he got the financial certificates necessary to support his IFP Application as quickly as he could, and mentions he suffered a slip and fall for which he was hospitalized, contributing to further delay. (Id. at 1-2.) He attaches the IFP Application he submitted in another case, Case No. 3:22-cv-00399-ART-CSD, to his objection as well. (Id. at 3-5.) He then appears to attempt to submit an IFP application for this case, along with supporting documentation, by including part of another copy of the IFP Application he submitted in Case No. 3:22-cv-00399-ART-CSD with the header blacked-out, and a copy of Judge Baldwin's R&R. (Id. at 6-93.)
In November 2022, Goodrum filed a motion to stay this case for 90 days because staff at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”) have allegedly taken a box of evidence from him. (ECF No. 6.) In December 2022, Goodrum filed another motion essentially requesting another 90-day stay because NNCC staff have still not given him his box of evidence back. (ECF No. 7.)
III. DISCUSSION
While the Court reviews Judge Baldwin's recommendation to dismiss this case de novo because Goodrum specifically objects to it, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court agrees with Judge Baldwin that this case should be dismissed. The Court will accordingly accept and adopt the R&R, overrule Goodrum's objection, and deny his two motions regarding the allegedly missing box of evidence as moot.
First, this case has an uncurable jurisdictional defect best resolved by dismissal without prejudice. Plaintiff did not file a complaint to initiate this case; he filed a complaint in state court and then filed a one-sentence statement to initiate this case-to the extent it was assigned a case number-stating that he was ‘moving' the case from state court to this court (ECF No. 1-1 at 1), apparently after receiving word from the Churchill County Sheriff that they were unable to serve the state-court judge Goodrum was attempting to sue in state court (id. at 2). While a defendant may remove a case from state court to federal court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1446, a plaintiff may not. To effect Goodrum's intent, Goodrum would likely have had to have obtained a dismissal of his state court case, and filed a new complaint with this Court.
But Goodrum did not do that. Indeed, he never filed a complaint with this Court. Thus, Goodrum never properly initiated a case that the Court would have jurisdiction to adjudicate. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”); see also Escobedo v. Applebee's, 787 F.3d 1226, 1232 (9th Cir. 2015) (same, also explaining that a plaintiff must either pay the filing fee or complete an IFP Application); see also Jane Doe S. v. Vashon Island Sch. Dist., 286 Fed.Appx. 375, 376 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Ms. S.'s ‘Petition for Review' because the Petition challenges a new administrative decision rendered after judgment in the underlying action and thus Ms. S. was required to bring a new civil action. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A) (providing that a party may bring a civil action to challenge an administrative decision under the IDEA); Fed.R.Civ.P. 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”).”).
Second, Goodrum does not dispute that he did not timely comply with Judge Baldwin's order to either pay the filing fee or complete an IFP Application. He instead tries to offer an IFP Application for the first time in his objection to the R&R, five months after he attempted to initiate this case and nearly two weeks after the deadline Judge Baldwin set for him-indeed, after she issued the R&R. (ECF No. 5.) But Judge Baldwin's recommendation was correct at the time she made it because there was no sign Goodrum was going to attempt to comply with her prior order, and either payment of the filing fee or a complete and accepted IFP Application are prerequisites to filing suit in federal court. See Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1232.
Third, Goodrum does not include a complete IFP Application specific to this case with his objection in any event. (ECF No. 5.) Goodrum instead appears to have copied an application he submitted in another case (id. at 6-7), and did not include either a Financial Certificate or Acknowledgement specific to this case (compare id. at 6-7 with id. at 3-5 (including more pages with signatures)).
Fourth, Goodrum does not provide a sufficiently specific explanation as to why he waited so long to even attempt compliance with Judge Baldwin's order, merely stating in general terms NNCC staff delayed in getting him documents that he fell and was injured- but not for how long, and does not explain what about his medical condition made him unable to comply with Judge Baldwin's order during that time. (Id. at 1-2.)
In sum, Goodrum never properly initiated this case and never complied with Judge Baldwin's order. The Court accordingly agrees with Judge Baldwin that dismissal is the appropriate next step here. However, the dismissal is without prejudice so that Goodrum may attempt to properly file a new case in this Court against the state court judge by simultaneously filing a complaint, and either paying the filing fee or filing a complete IFP Application simultaneously with any new complaint he files. In other words, the Court is giving Goodrum another chance, but he must take that chance-if at all-in a new case because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this one that was never properly initiated. The Court further denies Goodrum's two motions seeking either a stay or an extension of time (ECF Nos. 6, 7) as moot because the Court is dismissing this case without prejudice.
Goodrum may wish to research the doctrine of judicial immunity before properly filing a new case against a state court judge as well. See, e.g., Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Judges are immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts.”) (citation omitted).
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court notes that Goodrum made several arguments and cited to several cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the motions before the Court.
It is therefore ordered that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
It is further ordered that Goodrum's objection (ECF No. 5) is overruled.
It is further ordered that Goodrum's motion to stay case (ECF No. 6) is denied as moot.
It is further ordered that Goodrum's motion for extension of time (ECF No. 7) is denied as moot.
It is further ordered that this case is dismissed, in its entirety, without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.