Garrison v. Deputy Director NDOC et al
ORDER Denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; 3 Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; 5 6 7 9 10 Motions; as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/11/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
ARTHUR LEE GARRISON,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01050-GMN-VCF
DEPUTY DIRECTOR NDOC, et al.,
Petitioner Arthur Lee Garrison has submitted a pro se habeas corpus petition
(ECF No. 1). As he has paid the filing fee (see ECF No. 1-1), his application to proceed
in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) shall be denied as moot.
The claims that petitioner sets forth are not cognizable in habeas corpus but
rather are allegations of violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
namely vague allegations of violations of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs (see ECF No. 1).
Grounds, 788 F.3d 992, 1001 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[R]elief is available to a prisoner under
the federal habeas statute only if success on the claim would ‘necessarily spell speedier
release’ from custody.”); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976) (“Regardless of
how evidenced, deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious illness or injury states a
cause of action under § 1983.”).
Further, the court may take judicial notice of its docket, and Garrison previously
filed a purported habeas petition that attempted to set forth deliberate indifference
The court dismissed that case without
prejudice to the filing of a § 1983 complaint and directed that the Clerk of Court send
Garrison the form for such a complaint in this court. As in that case, this petition is
dismissed as noncognizable in federal habeas corpus.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 3) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motions for appointment of counsel
and/or for evidentiary hearing (ECF Nos. 2, 7, and 9); motions directed at his former
state-court counsel (ECF Nos. 5 and 6); and motion for copies (ECF No. 10) are all
DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent necessary in this procedural
context, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and
close this case.
DATED: 11 October 2016.
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?