Parrish v. Williams et al

Filing 7

ORDER that Petitioner's 6 Motion to Show Cause Why the Court Should Not Dismiss This Action is Denied. This action is DISMISSED and petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 9/8/2015. (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
15
16

This action, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, was initiated by
Darnell Leroy Parrish on April 28, 2015.

17

On June 29, 2015, the court examined Parrish’s petition, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules

18

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and determined that it is defective.

19

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

20

1998 in Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court. See Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (filed as an

21

attachment to ECF No. 1), pp. 1-2. However, Parrish has already litigated a federal habeas corpus

22

petition regarding that conviction and sentence; his current petition is successive. The court took judicial

23

notice of the proceedings in this court in Case No. 2:04-cv-00187-PMP-RJJ. In that case, initiated by

24

Parrish in 2004, Parrish challenged the same conviction and sentence that he challenges in this case, and

25

on July 22, 2005, this court denied Parrish relief on the merits of his claims. See Order entered July 22,

26

2005, ECF No. 32 in Case No. 2:04-cv-00187-PMP-RJJ. This court went on in that prior case to deny

1

Parrish a certificate of appealability. See Order entered August 25, 2005, ECF No. 36 in Case No. 2:04-

2

cv-00187-PMP-RJJ. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in turn, denied Parrish a certificate of

3

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

4

2:04-cv-00187-PMP-RJJ.

5

In the June 29, 2015, order, the court explained that a successive habeas petition may not be filed

6

in this federal district court unless the petitioner has obtained permission to do so from the Ninth Circuit

7

Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a second or successive application permitted

8

by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals

9

for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.”). The court noted that Parrish

10

made no allegation or showing that he obtained such permission from the court of appeals.

11

The court granted Parrish an opportunity to show cause why this action should not be dismissed

12

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

13

The court stated that if Parrish failed to show that he obtained such permission, this case will be

14

dismissed.

15

On July 24, 2015, Parrish filed a document entitled “Motion to Show Cause Why the Court

16

Should Not Dismiss This Action” (ECF No. 6). In that document Parrish argues the merits of his claims,

17

argues that he is factually innocent, and argues that his post-conviction litigation, in both state and

18

federal court, has not been properly adjudicated. Parrish does not, however, show that he obtained

19

permission from the court of appeals, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), to file this successive

20

federal habeas corpus action.

21

If Parrish believes that there is reason for him to be allowed to pursue a successive federal habeas

22

corpus petition, he must make a motion in the court of appeals for permission to do so, and he must

23

make a showing in this court, in conjunction with his initiation of such an action, that he has obtained

24

such permission. He has not done so. Therefore, this action will be dismissed.

25

///

26

///

2

1
2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s “Motion to Show Cause Why the Court
Should Not Dismiss This Action” (ECF No. 6) is DENIED.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

6
Dated this 8th day of September, 2015.
7
8
9

_______________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3