Martinez v. State of Nevada
Filing
7
ORDER that the Clerk shall DETACH and FILE the petition. FURTHER ORDERED that 5 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED as a successive petition. A certificate of app ealability is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall add Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada Attorney General, as counsel for respondents. The Clerk shall electronically serve the petition, along with a copy of this order, on respondents. No response by respondents is necessary.FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 12/12/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
10
FREDRICK MARTINEZ,
11
Case No. 2:17-cv-00501-RFB-CWH
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
12
13
STATE OF NEVADA,
14
Respondent.
15
16
17
Petitioner Fredrick Martinez has submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
18
(ECF No. 1-1). Pursuant to this court’s order, Martinez has now filed an application to
19
proceed in forma pauperis along with the financial certificate and inmate account
20
statements. The application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) shall be granted.
21
28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A) provides: “[b]efore a second or successive application
22
permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the
23
appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the
24
application.” Where a petition has been dismissed with prejudice as untimely or because
25
of procedural default, the dismissal constitutes a disposition on the merits and renders a
26
subsequent petition second or successive for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244. McNabb v.
27
Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029-1030 (9th Cir. 2009); Henderson v. Lampert, 396 F.3d 1049,
28
1053 (9th Cir. 2005).
1
1
Petitioner indicates on the face of his petition that he seeks to challenge the state
2
judgment of conviction in case no. C230889 (ECF No. 1-1, p. 3). This court takes judicial
3
notice of its docket, and Martinez previously filed case no. 3:14-cv-00097-RCJ-VPC, in
4
which he challenged the same state judgment of conviction. On November 19, 2014, this
5
court dismissed the earlier petition with prejudice as untimely, and judgment was entered
6
(3:14-cv-00097-RCJ-VPC, ECF Nos. 6, 7).
7
successive habeas corpus petition. Henderson v. Lampert, 396 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.
8
2005). Petitioner was required to obtain authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of
9
appeals before he could proceed with a second or successive petition. 28 U.S.C. §
10
2244(b)(3). Petitioner had not indicated that he has received such authorization from the
11
court of appeals. Accordingly, this petition shall be dismissed as second and successive.
12
Reasonable jurists would not find this conclusion to be debatable or wrong, and
13
the court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
14
15
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk shall DETACH and FILE the petition
(ECF No. 1-1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma
16
17
pauperis (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED.
18
19
This petition, therefore, is a second or
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED as a successive
petition.
20
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
21
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall add Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada Attorney
22
General, as counsel for respondents.
23
...
24
...
25
...
26
...
27
...
28
...
2
1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall electronically serve the petition,
2
along with a copy of this order, on respondents.
3
necessary.
4
5
No response by respondents is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly
and close this case.
6
7
DATED: 12 December 2017.
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
3
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?