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.

Jamie John Nichols v. Robert Hinckley and Jack D. Lippart

June 27, 2012

JAMIE JOHN NICHOLS
v.
ROBERT HINCKLEY AND JACK D. LIPPART



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Norma L. Shapiro, J.

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Jamie John Nichols ("Nichols") filed a pro se civil rights action against Officer Robert D. Hinckley ("Hinckley")*fn1 and Magisterial District Judge Jack D. Lippart ("Judge Lippart"). Nichols seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. The court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court will grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the complaint as frivolous, and give him leave to file an amended complaint.

I. FACTS

The complaint alleges Hinckley, a Ridley Park Police Officer, left a "Bill of Attainder," i.e., a parking ticket, on the windshield of Nichols's automobile on November 11, 2011. Compl. ¶ III.A.1.C. The ticket required him to pay the fine within 72 hours or risk incurring additional penalties; he claims it did not "provide judiciary relief or public trial." Id. He went to the police station to address the ticket, and the officers took it and would not return it unless he paid the fine.

Nichols received a "Summons for Summary Case Traffic" issued by Judge Lippart; Nichols alleges the summons demanded trial collateral and an initial plea. He responded to the summons by "ma[king] clear [his] Right to a judicial trial" and by stating the demand for collateral and a plea prior to trial violated his rights. Compl. ¶ III.2.C. Judge Lippart sent at least three additional summons to Nichols, who refused to pay the fine and continued to assert violations of his rights.

On March 18, 2012, Nichols's father received an order imposing sentence on Nichols; the order was sent to his home address in Apache Junction, Arizona.*fn2 The notice stated Judge Lippart held a hearing and imposed a sentence on Nichols in absentia. He made inquiries with the court and was informed the court had sent him notices of the hearing, but the notices were returned undelivered. He alleges his father then received a notice of an impending bench warrant for Nichols. He claims to have filed an appeal of his sentence; a review of his state court docket shows he was found not guilty on May 14, 2012.

Nichols seeks damages from defendants for violating his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.*fn3 A liberal reading of the pro se complaint would find that his cause of action is under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis added). Nichols also claims defendants are criminally liable under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 & 242, and Nevada Revised Statute 197.200. He further claims Judge Lippart committed "constructive treason." Compl. ¶ V.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted because Nichols has satisfied the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The court must dismiss the complaint sua sponte if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e) is governed by the same standard applicable to a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the court must determine whether the complaint contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Claims Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 & 242 and N.R.S. § 197.200

Nichols alleges defendants violated 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 241 & 242, criminalizing a conspiracy to deprive an individual of rights and the deprivation of an individual's rights under color of law. He also alleges Hinckley violated Nevada Revised ...


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.