Garcia v. State of Nevada et al
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. The clerk of the court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 1/9/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
JO GENTRY, et al.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00063-RFB-NJK
Petitioner has filed an amended petition (ECF No. 5). The court has reviewed it pursuant to
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Petitioner has
not corrected the defects of the initial petition, and the court will dismiss this action.
In the amended petition, as in the initial petition, petitioner claims that respondents violated the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment when they validated her as
a gang member. The court had directed petitioner to file an amended petition because she had alleged
no facts in the initial petition that this gang-member validation had affected the duration of her
imprisonment. The amended petition does not correct this defect. Petitioner again alleges facts that
show only that the conditions of confinement have changed, but that the legality or duration of her
confinement have not changed. “[I]f a state prisoner’s claim does not lie at ‘the core of habeas corpus,’
. . . it may not be brought in habeas corpus but must be brought, ‘if at all,’ under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983.”
Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
475, 487 (1973), and Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 535 n.13 (2011)), cert. denied 137 S. Ct. 645
(2017). The “core of habeas corpus” is relief that terminates custody, accelerates the future date of
release from custody, or reduces the level of custody, such as from incarceration to parole. Nettles, 830
F.3d at 930 (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 86 (2005) (Scalia, J., concurring)). The relief
that the court could grant petitioner would not affect the duration of her confinement. Therefore,
petitioner would need to seek that relief, if at all, through a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s conclusion to be debatable or wrong, and the court
will not issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. The clerk of the court shall
enter judgment accordingly and close this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
DATED: January 9, 2018.
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
United States District Judge
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?