Matadamos-Serrano v. Clark County Public Def.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6| RUBEN MATADAMOS-SERRANO, Case No. 2:22-cv-00757-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. 9] CLARK COUNTY PUBLIC DEF., 10 Defendant(s).

11 Through this action, Plaintiff appears to be seeking mandamus relief from the Nevada 12] Supreme Court. See, e.g., Docket No. 1-1 at 1. Indeed, the captions for all of Plaintiff's filings 13] are addressed to the Nevada Supreme Court. See, e.g., Docket No. 1 at 1. Moreover, Plaintiff 14]| appears to have believed that he was mailing his papers to the Nevada Supreme Court. Docket 15], No. 1-1 at 26 (envelope). Plaintiff is advised that he did not file his papers with the Nevada Supreme Court and that he instead mailed them to the United States District Court.’

17 Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to clarify the Court from which he seeks relief by June 23, 18] 2022. To the extent Plaintiff seeks relief from the Nevada Supreme Court, he may file a notice of 19] voluntary dismissal of this action and refile his request for mandamus relief directly with the 20|| Nevada Supreme Court. Failure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation that 21| this case be dismissed.

22 IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 Dated: June 9, 2022 .

Nancy J. Kopp 25 United States Magistrate Judge 27 ' A federal district court does not have appellate jurisdiction over a state court, whether by direct appeal, mandamus, or otherwise. See, e.g., Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).