Garrison v. Deputy Director NDOC et al

Filing 11

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

ARTHUR LEE GARRISON,

Case No. 2:16-cv-01050-GMN-VCF

10

Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
11
DEPUTY DIRECTOR NDOC, et al.,
12
Respondents.
13
14

Petitioner Arthur Lee Garrison has submitted a pro se habeas corpus petition

15

(ECF No. 1). As he has paid the filing fee (see ECF No. 1-1), his application to proceed

16

in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) shall be denied as moot.

17

The claims that petitioner sets forth are not cognizable in habeas corpus but

18

rather are allegations of violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

19

namely vague allegations of violations of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from

20

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs (see ECF No. 1).

21

Grounds, 788 F.3d 992, 1001 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[R]elief is available to a prisoner under

22

the federal habeas statute only if success on the claim would ‘necessarily spell speedier

23

release’ from custody.”); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976) (“Regardless of

24

how evidenced, deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious illness or injury states a

25

cause of action under § 1983.”).

Nettles v.

26

Further, the court may take judicial notice of its docket, and Garrison previously

27

filed a purported habeas petition that attempted to set forth deliberate indifference

28

medical claims.

3:15-cv-00429-RCJ-WGC.
1

The court dismissed that case without

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

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.

15
DATED: 11 October 2016.
16
17
18

GLORIA M. NAVARRO, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2