Parrish v. Williams et al

Filing 5

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner has paid the filing fee for this action. Petitioner has 30 days from the date of entry of this order to show cause why the court should not dismiss this action. Petitioner's 2 Request for Judicial Notice is Denied and Petitioner's 3 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages is Denied. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 6/29/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8

DARNELL LEROY PARRISH,

9

Petitioner,

10

vs.

11

2:15-cv-00784-RFB-VCF

BRIAN E. WILLIAMS, SR., et al.,

ORDER
12
13

Respondents.
_________________________________/

14

This action is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by Darnell

15

Leroy Parrish. Parrish initiated this action on April 28, 2015, by filing an application to proceed in

16

forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), along with his habeas corpus petition, a request for judicial notice (ECF

17

No. 2), and a motion for leave to exceed page limit (ECF No. 3).
Despite filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, Parrish paid the $5 filing fee.

18
19

See Receipt (ECF No. 1). Therefore, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is moot, and it will

20

be denied on that ground.

21

The court has examined the habeas petition, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

22

2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and determines that it is defective. The court will grant

23

Parrish and opportunity to show cause why the court should not dismiss this action.

24

Parrish’s habeas petition challenges conviction and sentence for second degree murder, entered

25

in 1998 in Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court. See Petition, pp. 1-2.

26

...

1

Parrish has, however, already litigated a federal habeas corpus petition regarding that conviction and

2

sentence; his petition is successive.

3

The court takes judicial notice of the proceedings in this court in Case No. 2:04-cv-00187-PMP-

4

RJJ. In that case, initiated by Parrish in 2004, Parrish challenged the same conviction and sentence that

5

he challenges in this case, and on July 22, 2005, this court denied Parrish relief on the merits of his

6

claims. See Order entered July 22, 2005, ECF No. 32 in Case No. 2:04-cv-00187-PMP-RJJ. This court

7

went on to deny Parrish a certificate of appealability. See Order entered August 25, 2005, ECF No. 36

8

in Case No. 2:04-cv-00187-PMP-RJJ. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in turn, denied Parrish a

9

certificate of appealability on November 29, 2005. See Order filed November 22, 2005, ECF No. 39 in

10

Case No. 2:04-cv-00187-PMP-RJJ.

11

A successive habeas petition may not be filed in this court unless the petitioner has obtained

12

permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a second

13

or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move

14

in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the

15

application.”). Parrish has made no allegation or showing that he has obtained such permission from

16

the court of appeals.

17

The court will grant Parrish an opportunity to show cause why this action should not be

18

dismissed on account of his failure to obtain, from the court of appeals, permission to file this successive

19

petition. If Parrish fails, within the time allowed, to show that he has obtained such permission, this case

20

will be dismissed. If Parrish is able to make the showing required by this order, the court will then

21

screen Parrish’s petition with regard to whether he states any claims that are not plainly meritless.

22

The court will deny Parrish’s request for judicial notice (ECF No. 2), but will retain that

23

document and treat it as briefing regarding his petition if this action proceeds. The court will deny

24

Parrish’s motion for leave to exceed page limit (ECF No. 3), as that motion is unnecessary; his petition

25

does not exceed any applicable page limit.

26

2

1
2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
(ECF No. 1) is DENIED. Petitioner has paid the filing fee for this action.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner shall have 30 days from the date of entry of

4

this order to show cause why the court should not dismiss this action, as explained above. Failure to

5

respond to this order within the time allowed, or failure to make the required showing, will result in the

6

dismissal of this action.

7
8
9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s request for judicial notice (ECF No. 2) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to exceed page limit
(ECF No. 3) is DENIED.

11
12

Dated this 29th day of June, 2015.

13
14
15

_______________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3