Petty v. Gentry et al

Filing 5

ORDER denying Petitioner's 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis denied as moot. Petitioner's 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel is denied. Petitioner shall have 60 days from entry of this order and shall SHOW CAUSE in writing why the petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as a successive petition. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 9/29/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - BEL)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7

ANTHONY EDWARD PETTY,

8

Case No. 2:16-cv-02105-RFB-NJK

Petitioner,
ORDER

9
10
11

vs.
JO GENTRY, et al.,
Respondents.

12
13

This habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 comes before the Court on petitioner’s

14

application (ECF No. 1) to proceed in forma pauperis, on his motion (ECF No. 3) for

15

appointment of counsel, and for initial review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

16

2254 Cases. Petitioner subsequently paid the filing fee, and the Court therefore will deny the

17

pauper motion without prejudice as moot and proceed to initial review.

18

Following initial review, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the petition

19

because it constitutes a successive petition. Petitioner therefore will be directed to show

20

cause why the petition should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

21

Petitioner Anthony Edward Petty seeks to set aside his January 8, 2001, Nevada state

22

judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of first-degree murder with the use of a

23

deadly weapon. He is serving two consecutive sentences of life with the possibility of parole

24

after twenty years on each sentence.

25

Petitioner previously sought federal habeas relief in this Court challenging the same

26

January 8, 2001, judgment of conviction in Petty v. Schomig, No. 2:04-cv-00947-RLH-LRL.

27

The Court dismissed that prior petition on the merits on March 20, 2006, and the Court of

28

Appeals denied a certificate of appealability on December 26, 2006.

1

Review of the online records of the state district court reflects that there have been no

2

intervening amended or corrected judgments of conviction filed in that court subsequent to

3

the January 8, 2001, judgment.1

4

Petitioner asserts in response to the pertinent inquiry in the federal petition form that

5

he has not obtained permission to file a successive petition from the Court of Appeals. (ECF

6

No. 1-1, at 2.) The claims in the current petition clearly challenge the January 8, 2001,

7

conviction.

8

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), before a second or successive petition is filed in the

9

federal district court, the petitioner must move in the court of appeals for an order authorizing

10

the district court to consider the petition. A federal district court does not have jurisdiction to

11

entertain a successive petition absent such permission. E.g., Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S.

12

147, 149 & 152-53 (2007). In the present petition, petitioner seeks to challenge the same

13

judgment of conviction that he previously challenged in No. 2:04-cv-00947. The present

14

petition constitutes a second or successive petition because that prior petition was dismissed

15

on the merits. See, e.g., Henderson v. Lampert, 396 F.3d 1049, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2005).

16

Petitioner accordingly must show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for lack of

17

jurisdiction as a successive petition.

18

Turning to the motion for appointment of counsel, the Sixth Amendment right to

19

counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722,

20

728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court to

21

appoint counsel to represent a financially eligible habeas petitioner whenever "the court

22

determines that the interests of justice so require." The decision to appoint counsel lies within

23

the discretion of the court; and, absent an order for an evidentiary hearing, appointment is

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court takes judicial notice of its records in the prior action filed in this Court by petitioner as well
as of the online docket records of the Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada. See Harris v.
County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2012). The online docket records of the state district
court may be accessed from:
https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/default.aspx

-2-

1

mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel

2

is necessary to prevent a due process violation. See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191,

3

1196 (9th Cir.1986).

4

The Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel

5

herein. Petitioner has demonstrated an adequate ability to address the potential issues

6

presented in this case proceeding in proper person. The Court further is not persuaded that

7

appointment of counsel is required or warranted for petitioner to respond to the order to show

8

cause. Petitioner must respond to the show-cause order pro se without counsel.

9

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that petitioner’s application (ECF No. 1) to proceed in

10

forma pauperis is DENIED without prejudice as moot following upon petitioner’s payment of

11

the filing fee.

12
13

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 3) for appointment of
counsel is DENIED.

14

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file the petition2 and that,

15

within sixty (60) days of entry of this order, petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE in writing why the

16

petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as a successive petition. If petitioner

17

does not timely respond to this order, the petition will be dismissed as a successive

18

petition without further advance notice.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all assertions of fact made by petitioner in response

20

to this show-cause order must be detailed, must be specific as to time and place, and must

21

be supported by competent evidence. The Court will not consider any assertions of fact that

22

are not specific as to time and place, that are not made pursuant to a declaration under

23

penalty of perjury based upon personal knowledge, and/or that are not supported by

24

competent evidence filed by petitioner in the federal record. Petitioner thus must attach copies

25
26
27
2

28

Nothing herein suggests that the current petition is free of other deficiencies, including, but not
limited to untimeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

-3-

1

of all materials upon which he bases his argument that the petition should not be dismissed

2

as a successive petition. Unsupported assertions of fact will be disregarded.

3
4

DATED this 29th day of September, 2017.

5
6
7
8

_________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-