Nash v. State of Nevada
Filing
3
ORDER that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice as duplicative. To the extent necessary in this procedural context, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 2/9/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
NANCY E. NASH,
10
Case No. 2:16-cv-00819-RFB-GWF
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
11
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
12
Respondents.
13
14
Petitioner Nancy E. Nash has submitted a pro se “informal brief,” and a motion for
15
leave to file a new petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF
16
Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 2). She has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid
17
the filing fee. Thus, this case has not been properly commenced and is subject to
18
dismissal on that basis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and Local Rule LSR1-2.
19
Moreover, the court may take judicial notice of its docket, and Nash has another
20
habeas petition pending in this court challenging the same judgment of conviction, state
21
case no. C237504 (See ECF No. 1-2; 2:16-cv-00901-JCM-NJK).
22
“AEDPA generally limits a petitioner to one federal habeas corpus motion and
23
precludes “second or successive” habeas corpus petitions unless the petitioner meets
24
certain narrow requirements. The statute provides that a claim presented in a second or
25
successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a
26
prior application shall be dismissed unless it relies on a new rule of constitutional law,
27
made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
28
unavailable or on newly discovered facts that show a high probability of actual innocence.”
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 825, 834 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations and citations
omitted).
Accordingly, this petition is duplicative and is also dismissed on that basis.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice as
duplicative.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent necessary in this procedural
context, a certificate of appealability is DENIED, as jurists of reason would not find the
court’s dismissal of this duplicative action to be debatable or incorrect.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and
close this case.
11
DATED: 9 February 2017.
12
13
14
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
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?