Newton v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 11

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Clerk ofCourt is directed to RE-OPEN this case and VACATE 4 the 1/20/17, dismissal order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 10 Newton's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTE D; and 1 Newton's petition is DENIED without prejudice to her ability to bring her claims and arguments at the proper time in the proper forum. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to RE-CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 3/23/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Shelly Newton,
2:16-cv-02948-JAD-NJK

5

Petitioner

6

v.

7

State of Nevada, et al.,

8

Order Vacating Dismissal Order,
Granting Application to Proceed in
forma pauperis, and Dismissing and Reclosing Case

Respondents
[ECF No. 10]

9
10
11

On January 20, 2017, I dismissed without prejudice this § 2254 action brought by Nevada

12

state pre-trial detainee Shelly Newton because she failed to submit a completed application to

13

proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $5.00 filing fee. Rather than filing her petition and an IFP

14

application in a new action as instructed by my order, Newton filed an application to proceed in

15

forma pauperis in this closed case. It appears from Newton’s application and supporting

16

documentation that she is was—and remains—unable to pay the filing fee to initiate this case. In the

17

interests of judicial economy, I vacate my January 20, 2017, dismissal order, re-open this case to

18

consider Newton’s IFP application, grant Newton pauper status, and screen her petition under

19

Habeas Rule 4.

20

Petitioner Shelly Newton is currently incarcerated at the Clark County Detention Center

21

awaiting trial on burglary, forgery, and related charges, and her trial is currently set to begin on May

22

30, 2017, in Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court.1 In the petition, Newton generally challenges

23

her August 2015 arrest and the resulting state-court charges. She first explains that she was arrested

24
25
26
27
28

1

http://redrock.clarkcountynv.gov/ccdcincustody/inCustodySearch.aspx. I take judicial notice of
this website. Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2010) (courts may
take judicial notice of government websites).
Page 1 of 3

1

at a Wal-Mart after she was questioned and detained by a security officer.2 She states that she was

2

not granted release on her own recognizance but was instead granted $5,000 bail, which she posted.

3

She was later remanded to custody after she arrived late to a court hearing and additional charges

4

were added against her.3 Though Newton does not articulate any specific claims, it appears that she

5

believes that she was unlawfully detained, the evidence is insufficient to support the charges against

6

her, and that she should be released on her own recognizance pending trial.

7

It plainly appears from the face of Newton’s petition that she is not entitled to federal habeas

8

relief because her claims are barred by Younger v. Harris, which requires a federal court to abstain

9

from interfering with pending state criminal prosecutions absent extraordinary circumstances.4

10

Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) state judicial proceedings are pending; (2) the state

11

proceedings involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate

12

opportunity to raise the constitutional issue.5

13

In light of Newton’s impending criminal trial in state court, all of the requirements for

14

Younger abstention are present, and I do not find that there are extraordinary circumstances

15

warranting federal-court intervention here.6 I therefore dismiss Newton’s petition and re-close this

16

action.7 And because reasonable jurists would not find my dismissal of Newton’s petition based on

17
18

2

See ECF No. 1 at 4–6.

19

3

ECF No. 1.

20

4

21

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1972); Edelbacher v. Calderon, 160 F.3d 582, 587 (9th Cir.
1998) (Younger applies to claims brought in federal habeas corpus proceedings).

22

5

23

6

24
25
26
27
28

Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994).

Younger, 410 U.S. at 43 (explaining that Younger abstention is not required when there is evidence
of state proceedings motivated by bad faith or harassment, where irreparable injury will occur, or
when there is no adequate alternative state forum where the constitutional issues can be raised);
Mannes v. Gillespie, 967 F.2d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1992) (Younger abstention not required where a
pending state prosecution violates the double-jeopardy clause).
7

Newton’s petition fails for the additional reason that it appears her claims are unexhausted because
she admits in her petition that she has never presented these claims to the Nevada Supreme Court.
ECF No. 1 at 2.
Page 2 of 3

1

Younger abstention debatable or wrong, I decline to issue a certificate of appealability.

2

Conclusion

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Clerk of

4

Court is directed to RE-OPEN this case and VACATE the January 20, 2017, dismissal order [ECF

5

No. 4].

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Newton’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF

7

No. 10] is GRANTED; and Newton’s petition [ECF No. 1] is DENIED without prejudice to her

8

ability to bring her claims and arguments at the proper time in the proper forum.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.

10

The Clerk of Court is directed to RE-CLOSE THIS CASE.

11

Dated this 23rd day of March, 2017.

12
13

_________________________________
____ ___________ _____
____
__
__ __ _ _ __ _
____
_
Jennifer A. Dorsey
fer A Dorsey
o
United States District Judge
d States District Judge
ate D
ud
ud

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 3