Scott v. State of Nevada
Filing
3
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 1 petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and that petitioner shall not be required to pay the filing fee. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file the petition a nd that, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order, petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE in writing.The Clerk shall SEND the petitioner two copies each of his petition and an AO-0242 form for a § 2241 petition. See Order for details/deadlines. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/27/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
***
8
9
ERIC RYAN SCOTT,
Petitioner,
10
11
Case No. 2:18-cv-00450-JCM-CWH
ORDER
v.
STATE OF NEVADA,
12
Respondent.
13
This habeas matter comes before the court on consideration of petitioner’s application to
14
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and for initial review pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules
15
Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254.
16
As an initial matter, the petition is denominated a petition for writ of habeas corpus, but it
17
is not on any court form and does not identify whether it is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or
18
§ 2241. It asserts several challenges, including double jeopardy, to petitioner’s state court trial on
19
charges of attempt murder with a deadly weapon, battery with a deadly weapon with substantial
20
bodily harm, and domestic battery, which occurred from February 5, 2017, to February 13, 2017.
21
(ECF No. 1-1 at 3). Taking judicial notice of the docket of the Eighth Judicial District Court, the
22
23
court determines that the criminal proceedings challenged in this case are ongoing.1 Petitioner has
yet to be sentenced and judgment of conviction entered, and thus petitioner is a pretrial detainee.2
24
25
26
27
28
1
Petitioner does not appear on the Nevada Department of Corrections inmate locater site and is currently housed at
the Clark County Detention Center, which is within the jurisdiction of the Eighth Judicial District Court. Upon review
of that court’s docket, the court has determined that the instant petition challenges proceedings in Case No. C-16317818-1. The charges, trial dates, and other filings in that case correspond exactly with the allegations made in the
petition.
2
The docket may be accessed via https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Portal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 (last visited
Mar. 26, 2018).
1
1
As petitioner’s criminal proceedings are ongoing and petitioner is a pretrial detainee, the petition
2
is properly construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
3
After considering the application for pauper status, the court finds that petitioner cannot
4
pay the filing fee. The application for in forma pauperis status will therefore be granted. Petitioner
5
will not be required to pay the filing fee.
6
Following upon initial review, it appears, inter alia, that the petition is wholly unexhausted
7
and is also barred under the abstention doctrine in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
8
Petitioner must therefore show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed without
9
prejudice.
10
Exhaustion
11
A state criminal defendant seeking to restrain pending state proceedings via a federal writ
12
of habeas corpus must first exhaust his state court remedies before presenting his constitutional
13
claims to the federal courts. The exhaustion rule applicable to requests for federal pre-conviction
14
intervention in pending state criminal proceedings is grounded in principles of judicial restraint
15
that predate and operate independently of the statutory exhaustion requirement in § 2254(b)(1).
16
See, e.g., Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489-92 (1973); Carden
17
v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980).3 To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, the claim
18
must have been fairly presented to the state courts completely through to the highest court
19
available, in this case the state supreme court. E.g., Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th
20
Cir. 2003) (en banc); Vang v. Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2003). In the state courts, the
21
petitioner must refer to the specific federal constitutional guarantee and must also state the facts
22
that entitle the petitioner to relief on the federal constitutional claim. E.g., Shumway v. Payne, 223
23
F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2000). That is, fair presentation requires that the petitioner present the state
24
courts with both the operative facts and the federal legal theory upon which the claim is based.
25
E.g., Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 2005). The exhaustion requirement insures
26
27
28
3
Accord Justices of Boston Muni. Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 333 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and
concurring in the judgment); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515 (1982) (exhaustion doctrine predates statutory
codification); Ex parte Hawke, 321 U.S. 114, 117 (1944) (applies to all habeas petitions challenging state custody to
avoid interference with the administration of justice in the state courts).
2
1
that the state courts, as a matter of federal-state comity, will have the first opportunity to pass upon
2
and correct alleged violations of federal constitutional guarantees. See, e.g., Coleman v. Thompson,
3
501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991).
4
Review of the Supreme Court of Nevada’s docket indicates that the only thing petitioner
5
has filed with that court is a direct appeal, which will not become effective until petitioner’s
6
judgment of conviction has been entered. Petitioner has filed no other appeal or petition in that
7
court. Thus, it appears the petition in this case is wholly unexhausted.
8
Accordingly, petitioner must show cause why the federal petition should not be dismissed
9
for lack of exhaustion. In order to establish exhaustion of all federal claims presented herein,
10
petitioner must demonstrate that he has presented each federal claim in this matter to the state
11
courts through to the Supreme Court of Nevada.
12
Younger Abstention
13
As a general rule, even when the claims in a petition have been fully exhausted in the state
14
courts, a federal court will not entertain a habeas petition seeking intervention in a pending state
15
criminal proceeding, absent special circumstances. See, e.g., Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632,
16
634 (9th Cir. 1983); Carden, 626 F.2d at 83-85; Davidson v. Klinger, 411 F.2d 746 (9th Cir. 1969).
17
This rule of restraint ultimately is grounded in principles of comity that flow from the abstention
18
doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under the Younger abstention doctrine, federal
19
courts may not interfere with pending state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary
20
circumstances.
21
While the court recognizes that an exception to Younger abstention exists where a pretrial
22
detainee is seeking to restrain an allegedly unconstitutional retrial on the grounds of double
23
jeopardy, Mannes v. Gillespie, 967 F.2d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1992), that exception does not apply
24
where, as here, the retrial has already taken place, see Hill v. Plummer, 27 Fed. App’x 723, 724
25
(9th Cir. 2001). Furthermore, even if this exception applied, the petitioner would still have to
26
exhaust his state court remedies before the federal court could consider his petition. In addition,
27
the exception would apply only to the double jeopardy claim and would not apply to any of the
28
3
1
other claims asserted in the petition, such as petitioner’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct,
2
ineffective assistance of counsel, and insufficient evidence.
Petitioner therefore must also show cause why the petition should not be dismissed without
3
4
prejudice under the Younger abstention doctrine.
5
Proper Respondent
6
Petitioner has named as a respondent the State of Nevada. Petitioner may not proceed
7
directly against the State of Nevada due to the state sovereign immunity recognized by the
8
Eleventh Amendment. State sovereign immunity bars an action against the State or an arm of the
9
State in federal court regardless of the relief sought. E.g., Pennhurst State School & Hospital v.
10
Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 101-02 (1984). Petitioner must name his immediate physical custodian,
11
in this instance the sheriff, as a respondent. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-42 (2004). The
12
state will be dismissed, and petitioner must file an amended petition naming the sheriff as a
13
respondent.
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that petitioner’s application (ECF No. 1) to proceed in
14
15
forma pauperis is GRANTED and that petitioner shall not be required to pay the filing fee.
16
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file the petition4 and that, within
17
thirty (30) days of entry of this order, petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE in writing why: (a) the
18
federal petition should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of exhaustion; and (b) the
19
federal petition further is not subject to dismissal without prejudice based upon the Younger
20
abstention doctrine.
21
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that all assertions of fact made by petitioner in response to
22
this show-cause order must be detailed, must be specific as to time and place, and must be
23
supported by competent evidence. The court will not consider any assertions of fact that are not
24
specific as to time and place, that are not made pursuant to a declaration under penalty of perjury
25
based upon personal knowledge, and/or that are not supported by competent evidence filed by
26
petitioner in the federal record. Petitioner must attach copies of all materials upon which petitioner
27
28
4
This order does not explicitly or implicitly hold that the petition is otherwise free of deficiencies.
4
1
bases an argument that the petition should not be dismissed. Unsupported assertions of fact will
2
be disregarded.
3
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, if petitioner maintains that any claims in the petition
4
have been exhausted, petitioner shall attach with his show-cause response: (a) copies of any and
5
all papers that were accepted for filing in the state courts that he contends demonstrate that each
6
federal claim in the present matter is exhausted; and (b) copies of all written state court decisions
7
on the claims.
8
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the State of Nevada shall be DISMISSED as a
9
respondent herein and that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days within which to file an amended
10
petition naming the sheriff as a respondent. If petitioner fails to timely do so, the action will be
11
dismissed without further advance notice.
12
13
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner shall file any amended petition on the court’s
form for petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
14
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner shall clearly title the amended petition as an
15
amended petition by placing the word “AMENDED” immediately above “Petition for a Writ of
16
Habeas Corpus” on page 1 and shall place the docket number, 2:18-cv-00450-JCM-CWH, in the
17
space to the right of the caption. Under Local Rule LR 15-1, the amended petition must be
18
complete in itself without reference to previously filed papers. Thus, the claims and allegations
19
that are stated in the amended petition will be the only matters remaining before the court. Any
20
claims or allegations that are left out of the amended petition or that are not re-alleged therein no
21
longer will be before the court.
22
If petitioner does not timely and fully respond to this order, or does not show adequate
23
cause as required, the entire petition will be dismissed without further advance notice. Given that
24
this action seeks to restrain ongoing state criminal proceedings, requests for extension of time to
25
respond to this order will be considered only in the most compelling of circumstances. The
26
continuing pendency of proceedings in the state appellate courts will not constitute compelling
27
circumstances supporting an extension request. Petitioner must demonstrate that the action is not
28
5
1
subject to dismissal within the time allowed, based upon the state of affairs existing as of that time.
2
Nothing herein restrains any state proceeding.
3
4
The Clerk shall SEND the petitioner two copies each of his petition and an AO-0242
form for a § 2241 petition, which can be retrieved from the forms page on the JNet.
5
6
DATED March 27, 2018.
THIS __ day of ____ 2018.
7
JAMES C. MAHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?