Dixon v. Director Nevada State Prison et al

Filing 10

ORDER that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with two orders to name the proper respondents. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 7/17/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01636-JAD-GWF

Robert Dixon,

4

Petitioner

5

Dismissal Order

v.
Nevada Department of Parole and Probation,
et al.,

6
7
8

Respondents

9
10

Pro se petitioner and parolee Robert Dixon was convicted in 1989 of two counts of

11 trafficking a controlled substance, and he received a life sentence for each count. 1 An amended
12 judgment was entered, making Dixon eligible for parole after 15 years on the first count and after
13 25 years on the second count. 2 He petitions for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
14 and argues that his parole violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments because his sentence
15 violates NRS 453.3395(2). 3
16

This is Dixon’s second attempt to petition for relief in this case. When I screened his first

17 petition, I found that he had not named the proper respondents, and I ordered him to fix that
18 deficiency in an amended petition by naming “his parole officer, the officer in charge of the state
19 parole agency, [and] the state attorney general as required by the petition form, and possibly the
20 official in charge of the state department of corrections.” 4 Dixon did not do so; his amended
21 petition still has the same incorrect-respondent deficiencies that I previously identified.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

ECF No. 7 at 3.

2

Id.

3

Id.

4

ECF No. 4.
1

I gave Dixon one final chance to amend his petition and name the appropriate

1

2 respondents. 5 Dixon had until July 9, 2018, to file a second-amended petition with the correct
3 respondents. That deadline has come and gone without a second-amended petition.
4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for
5 failure to comply with two orders to name the proper respondents.
The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE

6

7 THIS CASE.
Dated: July 17, 2018

8

_______________________________
______________________
__ __________ _
_ ______
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A Dorsey
S. District Judge Jennifer A.
i t d
e fe

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

5

ECF No. 9.
2