Lyons v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
PHILLIP J. LYONS, No. 66776
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA; AND DAVID
ROGER, DIST. ATTY. OF CLARK CO.,
FILED
NEVADA, JUN 20 2016
Respondents. TRACE K LINDEMAN
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE DEPUTY CLER
This is a pro se appeal from a district court order granting a
motion to dismiss in a civil rights action. Eighth Judicial District Court,
Clark County; Kenneth C. Cory, Judge.
Having considered appellant's pro se appeal statements and
the record, we conclude that thefl district court properly dismissed
appellant's action due to lack of standing. See Arguello v. Sunset Station,
Inc., 127 Nev. 365, 368, 252 P.3d 206, 208 (2011) ("Standing is a question
of law reviewed de novo."). Although appellant contends that he
"remain[s] realistically subject and threatened with prospective
deprivations of [his] liberty and constitutional rights under one or more of
the challenged circumstances," nothing in the record suggests as much.'
Thus, appellant lacks standing to seek to enjoin the enforcement of the
challenged statutes. See Doe v. Bryan, 102 Nev. 523, 525-26, 728 P.2d
443, 444-45 (1986) (concluding that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a
pre-enforcement challenge to a statute when plaintiffs were not "facing an
'We disagree with appellant's contention that he is more likely to be
prosecuted and convicted under the challenged statutes simply because he
has previously been prosecuted and convicted under those statutes.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1 ,147A
- S i3t0
immediate threat of arrest for violation of [the statute]" and when "the
risk of prosecution" under the statute was "imaginary [and] speculative"
(citing Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 458-59 (1973))); see also Susan
B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334, 2342-43 (2014) (observing
that a plaintiffs intent to engage in statutorily proscribed conduct is a
relevant factor in determining whether the plaintiff has standing to bring
a pre-enforcement challenge to the statute).
Additionally, appellant's argument about being prevented
from participating at the hearings does not warrant reversal. Appellant's
suggestion that the district court's dismissal decisions were "based heavily
in part on the oral arguments of defense counsel" is belied by the record.
The hearing minutes indicate that there was no oral argument, and the
district court's written orders indicate that the court's dismissal decisions
were based solely on the parties' written motion practice. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
cc: Hon. Kenneth C. Cory, District Judge
Phillip Jackson Lyons
Attorney. General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney/Civil Division
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(3) 1947A ce,