2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 DANIEL DEAN BALLARD, Case No. 3:21-cv-00498-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 THE STATE OF NEVADA, 9 Defendant. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Plaintiff Daniel Ballard initiated this action by filing an application to proceed 13 in forma pauperis and several attachments on December 6, 2021. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1–1-4.) 14 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 15 William G. Cobb.1 (ECF No. 3 (“R&R”).) The R&R recommends that Ballard’s application 16 to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) be denied without prejudice, and that the Court 17 administratively close this case. Ballard timely filed an objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 4 18 (“Objection”).) Because the Court agrees with Judge Cobb, and as further explained 19 below, the Court overrules Ballard’s Objection, adopts the R&R in full, and denies Ballard’s 20 application to proceed in forma pauperis. 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 The Court incorporates by reference Judge Cobb’s recitation of the factual 23 background provided in the R&R, which the Court adopts here. (ECF No. 3 at 1-2.) 24 III. LEGAL STANDARD 25 A. Review of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation 26 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 27

28 1The Court notes that due to Judge Cobb’s recent retirement, this case has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney. (ECF No. 5.) 2 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 3 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 4 recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. The Court’s review is thus de novo 5 because Ballard filed an Objection (ECF No. 4). 6 IV. DISCUSSION 7 Following a de novo review of the R&R and other records in this case, the Court 8 finds good cause to accept and adopt Judge Cobb’s R&R in full. 9 Judge Cobb recommends that Ballard’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 10 be denied because it appears Ballard has filed documents in this action related to a state 11 criminal appeal in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, and that Ballard 12 has mistakenly filed the documents in federal court. (ECF No. 3 at 2.) Judge Cobb 13 additionally stated that if Ballard intends to file a federal habeas corpus petition, Ballard 14 may do so by filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 15 The Court finds Ballard’s Objection difficult to follow as written. However, Ballard 16 attached to his Objection two financial certificates, which he states, “one for habeas 17 corpus, one for civil rights.” (ECF No. 4 at 2, 6-7.) Ballard also states he “intentionally filed 18 an appeal with this court” regarding his state court action because his previous state 19 appeal was denied and that his “state remedy has been exhausted as required by law.”2 20 (Id. at 2.) Additionally, Ballard appears to request the Court use the 6-month financial 21 records he submitted in a pending case, Case No. 3:21-cv-00460-RCJ-CSD, before this 22 Court. An examination of that case reveals that Ballard has already brought a habeas 23 petition before this Court. Because Ballard does not make clear in his Objection why the 24 25 2To the extent Ballard’s purpose of filing this action is to appeal the state court’s 26 rulings, his recourse is to pursue an appeal in the state courts. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine states that federal district courts may not exercise subject matter jurisdiction over 27 a de facto appeal from a state court judgment. See Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co.,

(1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals, v. Feldman,

(1983). State court 28 litigants may only achieve federal review of state court judgments by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. See Feldman,

. 1 || Court should not deny his application to proceed in forma pauperis or why this action 2 || should not be administratively closed, and in light of his pending habeas action before this 3 || Court, Ballard’s Objection is overruled. V. CONCLUSION 5 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff Daniel Ballard’s Objection (ECF No. 4) is 6 || overruled. 7 It is further ordered that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 8 || William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) is accepted and adopted in full. 9 It is further ordered that Ballard’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 10 || No. 1) is denied. 11 The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close out this case. 12 DATED THIS 4" Day of April 2022. 13 14 _ 15 A | ) 16 MIRANDA M. DU 7 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28