Christian v. Frierson ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Eric Christian, Case No.: 2:24-cv-01160-JAD-NJK 4 Plaintiff 5 v. Order Denying Motions and Striking Fugitive Filings 6 United States of America, [ECF Nos. 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23] 7 Defendant 8 Plaintiff Eric Christian is a prolific pro se filer in this court. The dozens of actions he’s 9 filed in this district since 2012 have almost all been dismissed as improperly commenced, 10 frivolous, harassing, or nonsensical. They’re all based on Christian’s fantastical theory that 11 constitutional violations he suffered during federal criminal prosecutions in the Central District 12 of California in 1999 and in this district in 20091 entitle him to billions of dollars in recompense 13 in the form of mansions and luxury cars. And the only thing standing in the way of his receipt of 14 these billions of dollars in assets, he believes, is this court’s refusal to sign a writ of execution. 15 So he invariably sues judges, the U.S. Attorney, the courts, the U.S. Marshal, the Clark County 16 Sheriff, Nevada’s Governor, and the United States of America in case after case, trying to get the 17 court to issue this magical writ. 18 Christian directs this particular suit at the current U.S. Attorney for the District of 19 Nevada, Jason Frierson. He alleges that a “summary judgment” in his 1999 criminal prosecution 20 in the Central District of California and a “forfeited summary judgment” in a 2017 civil case that 21 was dismissed in this district2 entitle him to a judgment against the United States for 22 1 United States v. Christian, 2:09-cr-303-JAD-VCF; and 2:99-cr-1120-SVW in the Central 23 District of California 2 Christian v. Lombardo, 2:17-cv-1707-RFB-DJA. 1 $2,135,000,000.3 He keeps filing proposed writs of execution and attachment and motions 2 requesting that they be entered immediately. 3 But all of these filings are fatally premature. When a plaintiff seeking to proceed in 4 forma pauperis, as Christian is here,4 files a lawsuit in this district, the magistrate judge first 5 screens his complaint to determine under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) whether the action “is frivolous 6 or malicious,” fails to state a colorable claim, or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who 7 is immune from such relief.”5 “The purpose of” this early judicial-screening requirement is “to 8 ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.”6 9 As this court’s advisory letter to Christian in this case explained, “The Court will review your 10 complaint before docketing and serving the complaint on the defendants. The court will ‘screen’ 11 your complaint to identify any ‘colorable’ claims.”7 That screening order may take “several 12 months,” and “[t]he Court will order service upon defendants when it is time to do so.”8 13 Christian’s amended complaint in this case has not yet been screened—indeed, it was 14 filed just six weeks ago.9 So it has not yet been determined whether he states any colorable, non- 15 frivolous claims, and the court has not yet ordered the complaint to be served on the defendant. 16 At a minimum, this procedural status makes all of Christian’s pending motions fatally premature, 17 18 19 3 ECF No. 4 at 5. 4 ECF No. 1. 20 5 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 21 6 Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)). 22 7 ECF No. 3 at 1. 23 8 Id. at 2. 9 See ECF No. 4. the magistrate judge explained to Christian when denying an earlier round of such motions for 2||the very same reason. '° 3 So IT IS ORDERED that Christian’s pending motions for various relief [ECF Nos. 17, 4118, 20, 22] are DENIED as premature. Christian is cautioned that unless and until this 5] court screens his complaint and allows a claim to move forward, requests for writs, default, 6] or any other relief are premature and will be denied on that basis. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Christian’s proposed writs and “forfeiture” notices 8]| [ECF Nos. 11, 19, 21, 23] are STRUCK as fugitive documents. □□□ U.S. District JudgeJenniferA. Dorsey 10 August 14, 2024 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 10 See ECF No. 15. While ECF 17 is titled “Objection and Motion for Reconsideration,” and 9 thus has been docketed as an appeal of the magistrate judge’s denial of the other premature motions at ECF No. 15, nothing in that largely inscrutable filing persuades me that the magistrate 3 judge’s denial was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule IB 3-1. So, to the extent that ECF 17 can be fairly construed as an appeal from or objection to the magistrate judge’s without-prejudice denial of those motions, I also deny it as meritless.