Brown v. Eighth Judicial District Court
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that this action shall be dismissed without prejudice. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied. The clerk of court shall send petitioner: (a) a copy of his papers in this action; (b) two copies o f an inmate pauper application form and one copy of the instructions; and (c) two copies of an AO-0242 form for a § 2241 petition, which can be retrieved from the forms page on the JNet. The clerk shall enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/27/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF -cc: Adam Laxalt - ADR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
MARLON LORENZO BROWN,
EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
Petitioner, a state pretrial detainee, has filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
without properly commencing the action by paying the filing fee or filing a pauper application.
This is the second habeas action that petitioner has commenced recently without either
paying the filing fee or filing a pauper application. The present papers were filed after the
dismissal of the prior action, and it appears that petitioner used the § 2241 petition form that
the clerk forwarded with the dismissal order.
As the court stated in the prior dismissal order, petitioner must properly commence
each action that he files by contemporaneously either paying the filing fee or submitting a
properly completed pauper application in that action.
commenced is subject to immediate dismissal absent substantial prejudice.
Any action that is not properly
It does not appear that a dismissal of this improperly-commenced action without
prejudice to the filing of a new and properly commenced action under a new docket number
would constitute the functional equivalent of a dismissal with prejudice or otherwise cause
substantial prejudice. Petitioner is challenging his pretrial detention by state authorities; and
the one-year limitation period of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) is not applicable to such an action, which
arises under § 2241 rather than § 2254.
This action, like the one before it, will be dismissed, for the same reason.
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this action shall be dismissed without prejudice.
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is dened. Jurists of
reason would not find debatable whether the court was correct in its dismissal of the action
without prejudice on procedural grounds, for the reasons discussed herein.
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases, that the clerk shall make informal electronic service upon respondents by adding state
attorney general Adam P. Laxalt as counsel for respondents and directing a notice of
electronic filing of this order to his office. No response is required from respondents other
than to respond to any orders of a reviewing court.
The clerk of court shall send petitioner: (a) a copy of his papers in this action; (b) two
copies of an inmate pauper application form and one copy of the instructions; and (c) two
copies of an AO-0242 form for a § 2241 petition, which can be retrieved from the forms page
on the JNet.1
The clerk shall enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing this action without
DATED: October 27, 2017.
JAMES C. MAHAN
United States District Judge
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). Further, petitioner must
name his immediate physical custodian, in this instance the sheriff, as respondent.
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?