Warenback v. Williams et al
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to DETACH and FILE Warenback's petition 1 -1. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 2 Warenback's motion for leave to file a successive petition is DENIED. I decline to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find my conclusions to be debatable or wrong. The Clerk of Court is directed to ADD Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada Attorney General, ascounsel for respondents, and ELECTRONICALLY SERVE on respondents the petition along with a copy of this order. Respondents do not need to respond.The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 11/21/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Douglas Harry Warenback,
Order Dismissing Petition
Brian Williams, et al.,
[ECF No. 2]
Pro se petitioner Douglas Warenback is currently serving 4–10 years at the High Desert
State Prison after he was convicted of pandering a child.1 He filed this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus,2 but he did not pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. Although he filed a “notice of temporary financial information” in which he estimates
his inmate account balances and provides some transaction summaries,3 these filings are
insufficient and this matter has been improperly commenced.4
Warenback also indicates on the face of his petition that he already has a federal habeas
petition for this conviction pending in this court in case no. 2:15-cv-01789-APG-VCF. Title 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) provides: “Before a second or successive application permitted by this
section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals
for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.”5 Where a petition has been
dismissed with prejudice as untimely or because of procedural default, the dismissal constitutes a
NEVADA DEP’T OF CORRECTIONS, https://www.doc.nv.gov/Inmates/Home (last visited Nov. 16,
2017) (inmate search by name Douglas Warenback or by offender ID 1112924).
ECF No. 1-1.
ECF No. 3.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (2012); Local Rule LSR 1-2.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2012).
disposition on the merits and renders a subsequent petition successive for purposes of 28 U.S.C.
Warenback’s earlier-filed petition is still pending in this court before Judge Gordon.7
This petition is therefore duplicative and successive. Warenback is apparently aware that he
must seek leave from the Ninth Circuit to file a successive petition because he informs this court
that he has asked the Ninth Circuit for leave but has not yet received an answer.8 Without leave
from the Ninth Circuit, Warenback may not file successive habeas petitions.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to DETACH and FILE Warenback’s
petition [ECF No. 1-1].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Warenback’s motion for leave to file a successive
petition [ECF No. 2] is DENIED.
I decline to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find
my conclusions to be debatable or wrong.
The Clerk of Court is directed to ADD Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada Attorney General, as
counsel for respondents, and ELECTRONICALLY SERVE on respondents the petition along
with a copy of this order. Respondents do not need to respond.
The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE
DATED: November 20, 2017.
__ _____ __________
U.S. District Judge Jenni A. Dorsey
S. District Judge Jennifer
See McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029–1030 (9th Cir. 2009); Henderson v. Lampert, 396
F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2005).
See docket report 2:15-cv-01789-APG-VCF.
ECF No. 2 at 2.
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?