Young v. Williams et al
Filing
7
ORDER that a certificate of appealability is Denied. The Clerk shall provide electronic notice of this Order to the Court of Appeals. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/15/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: USCA - SLD)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
DANNY ANDREW YOUNG,
9
2:13-cv-01739-JCM-PAL
Petitioner,
10
vs.
ORDER
11
12
BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
15
This habeas matter comes before the court for consideration of possible issuance of
16
a certificate of appealability following upon the filing of a notice of appeal. The court
17
dismissed this action as duplicative of petitioner’s currently pending first-filed action in No.
18
2:12-cv-00524-JCM-NJK.
19
At the outset, with deference to the authority of the court of appeals with regard to
20
matters concerning its own jurisdiction, it appears that the notice of appeal is untimely. Final
21
judgment was entered on May 27, 2014, and the certificate of service on the notice of appeal
22
is dated July 2, 2014.
23
Turning to consideration of a certificate of appealability, when the district court denies
24
relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the
25
petitioner must show in order to obtain a certificate of appealability that jurists of reason would
26
find it debatable whether the petition stated a valid claim of a denial of a constitutional right
27
and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
28
ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While both showings must be made,
1
"a court may find that it can dispose of the application in a fair and prompt manner if it
2
proceeds first to resolve the issue whose answer is more apparent from the record and
3
arguments." 529 U.S. at 485.
4
Jurists of reason would not find debatable the district court’s dismissal of this clearly
5
duplicative action. The court’s dismissal order outlined why the dismissal of this duplicative
6
action without prejudice would not otherwise result in collateral prejudice to petitioner. See
7
#3, at 2-3. There is no basis in either law or common sense for pursuing this needless
8
second action. A court clearly has the authority to eliminate duplicative litigation in applying
9
limited judicial resources, where prejudice will not accrue to the litigant.
10
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The clerk
11
shall provide electronic notice of this order to the court of appeals in the customary manner.
12
DATED: July 15, 2014.
13
14
15
16
___________________________________
JAMES C. MAHAN
United States District Judge
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?