Brown v. Eight Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada et al

Filing 3

ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice; a certificate of appealability is denied; Clerk directed to e-serve respondents by addingNevada AG as counsel for respondent (e-served on 10/16/2017); response is required from respondents other than to respond to any orders of a reviewing court; Clerk directed to send petitioner a copy of his papers, instructions and two copies of an inmate pauper application form and two copies of an AO-0242 form for a 2241 petition (mailed to Petitioner on 10/16/2017); Clerk directed to enter judgment accordingly dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/16/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

MARLON LORENZO BROWN,

10
11

Case No. 2:17-cv-02644-MMD-GWF
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.

12

EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, et
al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Petitioner, a state pretrial detainee, has filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §

16

2241 without properly commencing the action by paying the filing fee or filing a pauper

17

application.

18

Petitioner asserts that he filed a pauper application with another pending civil

19

action and directs the Court to that application. Petitioner must properly commence

20

each action that he files by contemporaneously either paying the filing fee or submitting

21

a properly completed pauper application in that action. Any action that is not properly

22

commenced is subject to immediate dismissal absent substantial prejudice.

23

It does not appear that a dismissal of this improperly-commenced action without

24

prejudice to the filing of a new and properly commenced action under a new docket

25

number would constitute the functional equivalent of a dismissal with prejudice or

26

otherwise cause substantial prejudice. Petitioner is challenging his pretrial detention by

27

state authorities; and the one-year limitation period of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) is not

28

applicable to such an action, which arises under § 2241 rather than § 2254.

1

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice.

2

It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability is denied. Jurists of reason

3

would not find debatable whether the Court was correct in its dismissal of the action

4

without prejudice on procedural grounds, for the reasons discussed herein.

5

It is further ordered, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

6

Cases, that the Clerk make informal electronic service upon respondents by adding

7

Nevada Attorney General Adam P. Laxalt as counsel for respondents and directing a

8

notice of electronic filing of this order to his office. No response is required from

9

respondents other than to respond to any orders of a reviewing court.

10

It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court send petitioner: (a) a copy of his papers

11

in this action; (b) two copies of an inmate pauper application form and one copy of the

12

instructions; and (c) two copies of an AO-0242 form for a § 2241 petition, which can be

13

retrieved from the forms page on the JNet.1

14
15
16

The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing this action
without prejudice.
DATED THIS 16th day of October 2017.

17
18
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1Petitioner

may not submit a wholly handwritten petition but instead must use the
§ 2241 petition form. Petitioner additionally should attach copies of all state court
decisions addressing the claims that he raises in the federal petition. The Court does not
imply by omission that the papers presented are not subject to other deficiencies. Federal
courts generally may not interfere in pending state criminal prosecutions absent
extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1970).

2