Bailey v. Gillespie et al

Filing 32

ORDER Denying 28 Motion for Certificate of Appealability re 25 Notice of Appeal. E-mail notice (NEF) sent to the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Denying 26 Motion to Appoint Counsel on appeal, without prejudice to petitioner's pre sentation of such a motion to the Court of Appeals. Dismissing without prejudice 30 Motion seeking a briefing schedule, as improvidently docketed in the district coud as the motion appears to have been filed in and to be directed to the Court of Appeals. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 8/3/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SD)

Ats - : 2 1 l 3 00
1 2

3
4
j

6 7
8 9 10
V S.

UNITED STA TE S D ISTR IC T CO U R T D IST R IC T O F N E V A D A
A N TH O N Y BA I EY , L Pettoner ii , 2: cv- 0047- C J PA L 10- 0 RORDER DOU G LA S C.G I LE SPI ,etal, L E .

11 1 2

13
1 4

Res ondent . p s

1 5 Thi h b a a t n c me b f r t e Cou ton a mo in (/ 8 f ra c ric t o s a e s ci o s eo e h o r t / )o o2 e tia e f f 1 appealbiiy( OA) pettoners moton ( 26)f rappoit entofc unselonappealand a 6 a l C , ii ' i # o t nm o , 1 mo in ( 3 )s ekng abr fn s h due. 7 t #0 e i o i ig c e l e
1 8
Bailey v. Gillespie et al

On t e fr tmoton, ii nerdi notfl a motonf ra ceriiat ofappeal biiy.He h is i petto d ie io tc e f a lt
Doc. 32

1 fld anotceofappealseekig t appealan or erdenyighi postj dgmentmoton.The 9i e i no d ns -u i
20 Cl r ofCour made a cl rcalenty al o f ra moton f ra cediiat ofappeal bii . ek t ei r so io fc e a ly t

21 The notce ofappealappear on i f ce t be diectd t t e Cour' or er( 24) i s ta o s r e oh ts d # 2 de yng peion r mo i n ( 2 )sye a a Rue 6 ( )3 moin b s d u on fa d a d 2 n i t i e ' to # 3 tld s t s l 0 b ( ) to a e p r u n 23 miconduc.Thatmoton wasfldwihi t e 28- aytmeperod f rseekigpostj dgment s t i ie t n h di io n -u
24 r l funderRul 59. The Cour wi as um e,ar uendo, hata ceriiat ofappeal bii i ei e e tls l g t tfc e a ly s t
25 r quied t appealt e deni lofa moton underRul 59 t t e sam e ex entas cur entNi t ero h a i e oh t r nh

2 Cicui Iw r quies wih r gar t a m oton underRul 60. 6 r ta e r t e do i e1
27 28 l r Jackson v. Ala yA pe l u e u ont4 2 F.d s . 4(d ci. o0 )Rue59moin ; c b n p a B r a i, 4 3 l s 2 r 2 6 ( I to )

(ontn e .. c iu d.)

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5

A c riiat ofappealbii shoul isue t appealt e denilofa pos-udgment et c e f a ly t ds o h a tj moton onl ijrssofr asonwoul fnd idebat bl whet ert e dititcour abused is i y f u it e di t ae h h src t t dicr toni denyigt emoton.CLLync F, odget, F.d4O1, 03( tCi. s ei n nh i h Bl t999 2 402- 9h r1993) . l t e pr sentcase,urssofr as n woul notfnd i debat bl whet erte dititcoud nh e j it e o d it ae h h src abus d is dicr ton i denyig pettoners postj dgmentmoton. The Cour rjct d e t s ei n n ii ' -u i t ee e

6 pettoners cl i t at hi pl a t a bater char e com m it d agai s t e vi tm t e sam e ii ' a m h seo ty g te n t h ci h 7 eveni g or eary m or i g when he st uc t e vi tm w i a t l vi i n r m ot c ntolbar ed n l nn r k h c i t e e so e e o r h r

8 he St t fom pr secutng hi on fve count of s xualass ul wih a deadl weapon ae r o i m i s e at t y
9 alegedl c m m it d w hi pettonerhad a knie oraccess t a knie. Pettonerc nt nded l yo te l e ii f o f ii oe

1 i te p stj dgmentmoton,/l ral ,t atpolc r pors and ot erivestgatve mat ral 0 n h o -u i ne i h a ie e t h n ii ei s
11 i s ead i di at d t at he r m ot contol as t e prm ar w eapon used i t e sex al nt nce h t e e rw h i y nh u assauls. t

1 Thi ar um ent was beled by r t er t an suppored by t e char i g i s r m ent and 2 sg i ah h t h g n n tu s 1 i ves i atve mat ral ,W hi t e i vestgatve r pors i deed r f rt t e bater commit d 3 n tg i ei s lh n i i e ln e ee o h ty te
1 wih t e r m ot cont ol t e s xual assaul nur e s at s i t e ver sam e i vestgatve 4 th e e r,h e t s te nh y n ii

1 mat ral upon whi hpettonerr lest att e vitm st t d ' he had beenf r edt have s x 5 ei s c ii e i h h ci a e ' s oc o e
1 by Baiey at kni poi t' See #24,at 2- . Jurs s of r ason w oul notfnd i debat bl 6 l f e n. 3 it e d it ae

1 whet ert i Cour abused i dicr ton i denyi g t e moton. 7 h hs t t s ei n s nh i 1 8 To t e ext nt- iany - t att e notce ofappealnst ad i diect d t t e underyi g h e -f hh i i e s r e oh ln

1 or erandj dgmentofdimisalt eCour aleadyhasdenid ac riiat ofappeal bit . 9d u s s ,h tr e e tfc e a ly i
20 See #21,at8- , 9 21 On t e moton f rappoit entofcouns lon appeal gi en t at c unselwas not h io nm e ,v h o
2 appoi t d i t e dititc ur pr ceedi gs,i woul be mor appr prat f rt e appelat 2 n e n h s rc o t o n t d e o ie o h le 2 cour t addr s any isues r l tn t c unselon appeal Thi Cour accor i gl wildeny 3 to es s eaig o o .s t dn y l
24 25 l

26 L ngod k Da ,1 4F.d 1 81 1 8 (*Ci,1 9 )Rue60b)moin ; e as 1 AA Fe erlPr cie& a fr ' y 3 3 3 , 3 2 9 r 9 8 ( I ( t ) s e lo 6 . o d a a tc Pr c d r : ur dcinj3 6 ., nn 7 - 1(ie . 01 ) Peio e s g essi tenoieo a p alh t o e u e J i it s o 9 8 1 at : 58 4h d 2 0 . tin r u g t n h t f p e t a t c
27 a cediiat ofappeal bii i notr quied ast a Secton 2241 petton. The Nit Cicui has hel t t e fc e a lt s y er o i ii nh r t doh 28 U.S.

t.c niue ) ..o tn d

c nrr i t eco tx pes ne .SeeWi o v Belq e, 5 F.d81 , 4 2 (tCi.,c r. ned o ta y n h ne t r e td l n . l u 5 4 3 6 82 - 5 9h r) e tde i , s e ,30S. t75 1 5L.d.d5 (0 9) 1 C. , 7 E 2 3 2 0 .
-

2-

1 t e moton f rc unselwihou prj diet pettonerspr s nt tonofsucha motont t e h ioo t t eu c o ii ' e e a i i oh
2 Cour of Appeal . The Cour woul not ,however t at pettoner has demonstat d a t s t de ,h ii re
3 sufi i ntabii t adi ul t hi posii n,t att e i sues ar notc m plx,and t att er i fce ly o c a e s t to h h s e oe h h es 4 nota subs an i lIkelhood ofs cc ss on t e appeal t ta i i ue h .
5 The m oton f r a brefng schedul i captoned f rt e Cour ofAppeal ,i diect d io ii es i oh t ssr e

6 t pr ceedi gsi t atc ur, oo n n h o tand r quest an or erfom t atcour.The moton submit d t e s drh t i te o
7 t e Cl r of t i Cour appear t be onl a ser i e copy oft e m oton. The m ot n wilbe h e k hs t so y vc h i i o l

8 dimised wihou prj die asi pr vientydock t d i t i Cour.Asa gener lmater ss t t eu c m od l e e n hs t a t,
9 unl ss a par i ul rr l diec s ot er i e,pettonerdoes notneed t ser e t e Cl r oft i e tc a u e r t h w s ii o vh e k hs

1 Cour wih copi s ofmotons submi ed t t e Cour ofAppeal. 0 tt e i t oh t t s

l1

I THEREFORE I ORDERED t att e moton( 28)f ra c riiat ofappealbit T S hh i # o e tfc e a ly i

12 i DENI D . s E

1 3 I FURTHER I ORDERED tat etine ' mo in ( 2 ) o ap oit e t c u s l T S h p io r to # 6 f r p n m n of o n e ts 1 on appeali DENI D wihoutprj diet pettonerspr sent ton ofsuch a motont t e 4 s Et eu c o ii ' e ai i oh
1 Cour ofA ppeal . 5 t s

1 6 I FURTHER I ORDERED t att e moton (/ 0)s ekng a brefn sc edul i T S hh i /3 e i i ig h e s 1 DI M I SED wi ou p eu ie a i p o ien l do k t d i t e ditit ou a t e mot n 7 SS t t rj dc s m r vd t c ee n h src c d s h h y i o
1 appear t have been fl d i and t be diec ed t t e Cour ofA ppeal . 8 so ie n o r t oh t s 1 9
20
21 22 *

DATED :

Thi 3r day ofAugust 2010. sd ,

23
24 25 26

Unied St t a

DititJudge s rc

27 28
-

3-