Turpening v. Philson et al

Filing 3

ORDER that 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The Clerk shall file the Petition. Grounds 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the petition for writ of habeas corpus are DISMISSED. The clerk of the court shall add Adam Paul Lax alt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, as counsel for respondents and shall electronically serve upon respondents a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and a copy of this order. FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have 60 days from the date on whichthe petition is served upon them to appear in this action, and to answer or otherwise respond to the petition. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/12/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8

AARON LEE TURPENING,

9

Petitioner,

10

vs.

11

TIMOTHY FILSON, et al.,

12

2:16-cv-02947-JCM-PAL

Respondents.

ORDER

13

_______________________________/

14
15

This action is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by

16

Aaron Lee Turpening, a Nevada prisoner. Turpening initiated this action on December 19, 2016, by

17

filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), along with his habeas corpus petition

18

(attached to application to proceed in forma pauperis).

19

The financial information provided with Turpening’s application to proceed in forma

20

pauperis indicates that he is unable to pay the filing fee for this action. Therefore, the in forma

21

pauperis application will be granted, and Turpening will not be required to pay the filing fee.

22
23
24

The court has reviewed Turpening’s petition, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
Turpening’s habeas petition includes six separate grounds for relief. The court determines

25

that Grounds 1 and 2 set forth claims worthy of response by the respondents. On the other hand,

26

Grounds 3 through 6 – each claiming that Turpening’s counsel was ineffective for failing to

1

challenge the validity of the Nevada Revised Statutes – are patently frivolous. It is plain that

2

Turpening is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief on Grounds 3 though 6. Grounds 3 through

3

6 of Turpening’s petition will be summarily dismissed.

4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma

5

Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

6

Petitioner will not be required to pay the filing fee for this action.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall separately file the petition
for writ of habeas corpus, which is attached to the in forma pauperis application at ECF No. 1.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Grounds 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the petition for writ of habeas
corpus are DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall add Adam Paul Laxalt,
Attorney General of the State of Nevada, as counsel for respondents.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall electronically serve upon
respondents a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and a copy of this order.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have 60 days from the date on which

16

the petition is served upon them to appear in this action, and to answer or otherwise respond to the

17

petition.

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if respondents file an answer, petitioner shall have 60

19

days from the date on which the answer is served on him to file and serve a reply. If respondents file

20

a motion to dismiss, petitioner shall have 60 days from the date on which the motion is served on

21

him to file and serve a response to the motion to dismiss, and respondents shall, thereafter, have 30

22

days to file a reply in support of the motion.

23
24

January 12, 2017.
Dated this _____ day of January, 2017.

25
26
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2