Slayden v. MCDANIEL et al

Filing 42

ORDER that Petitioner's 40 Motion for Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery and Sanctions and 41 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery are both Denied. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 5/10/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 10 11 12 13 14 EMERY SLAYDEN, v. Case No. 2:06-cv-00664-APG-CWH Petitioner, ORDER E.K, MCDANIEL, et al., Respondents. On March 13, 2009, this court denied petitioner Emery Slayden’s 28 U.S.C. § 15 2254 habeas corpus petition, and judgment was entered on March 16, 2009 (ECF Nos. 16 21, 22). On February 21, 2017, Slayden filed what he styled a motion to supplement 17 petition (ECF No. 37). This court denied the motion (ECF No. 39). Slayden has now 18 filed a motion to compel disclosure and for an extension of time (docketed as two 19 motions at ECF Nos. 40 and 41). These motions shall also be denied. 20 As the court explained previously, Slayden’s petition has already been 21 adjudicated on the merits. He seeks to challenge the same judgment of conviction. 28 22 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A) provides: “[b]efore a second or successive application permitted by 23 this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court 24 of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” Where 25 a petition has been dismissed with prejudice as untimely or because of procedural 26 default, the dismissal constitutes a disposition on the merits and renders a subsequent 27 petition second or successive for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244. McNabb v. Yates, 576 28 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 F.3d 1028, 1029-1030 (9th Cir. 2009); Henderson v. Lampert, 396 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2005). In the current motion, Slayden states that he needs another copy of a letter that his former girlfriend wrote at the time of his arrest that he claims is exculpatory because he “g[ave] the last copy out to an old friend” (ECF No. 40, p. 2). Slayden also states that the letter was a part of the record in his state habeas case. Here he again attempts to challenge the same judgment of conviction, and as he was previously advised, he must seek and obtain leave of the appeals court to pursue a successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) et seq. Accordingly, Slayden’s motion is denied. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for order compelling disclosure or discovery and sanctions (ECF No. 40) and motion for extension of time to complete discovery (ECF No. 41) are both DENIED. DATED: 10 May 2017. 15 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?