Munoz v. Smith et al

Filing 128

ORDER - This action is DISMISSED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close this action. A certificate of appealability will not issue. (See attached PDF order for specifics) Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 2/25/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL)

Case 3:11-cv-00197-LRH-RAM Document 128 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

PETER MUNOZ, JR.,

12
13
14
15

Petitioner,

Case No. 3:11-cv-00197-LRH-RAM
ORDER

v.
NATALIE WOOD, et al.,
Respondents.

16
17

This is a habeas corpus matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Peter Munoz was

18

convicted in state district court of one count of attempted lewdness with a child under the age of

19

14. ECF No. 70-2. The state district court imposed a prison sentence, ordered Munoz to register

20

as a sex offender, and imposed a special sentence of lifetime supervision. Id. Munoz's remaining

21

claims in this action related only to the special sentence of lifetime supervision. See ECF No. 114

22

at 4. On June 16, 2020, the court determined that Munoz was not entitled to relief on those

23

remaining claims, and the court denied the petition. ECF No. 114. Munoz appealed on July 9,

24

2020. ECF No. 116. On November 15, 2021, the court of appeals vacated this court's judgment.

25

ECF No. 122. The court of appeals determined that Munoz's conditions of lifetime supervision

26

were not "custodial" within the meaning of § 2254. Id. at 19. The court of appeals concluded

27

that this court lacked jurisdiction over Munoz's habeas corpus petition. Id. The court of appeals

28

remanded for this court to determine whether to allow Munoz leave to file an amended habeas
1

Case 3:11-cv-00197-LRH-RAM Document 128 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 2

1

corpus petition that could secure jurisdiction under § 2254, or, alternatively, to consider whether

2

it would be appropriate to construe Munoz's petition as a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.

3

§ 1983 after notifying Munoz and obtaining his consent. Id. Munoz did not seek further review

4

of the decision of the court of appeals.

5

Munoz has filed a notice in this court. ECF No. 127. He states "that he does not, at this

6

time, intend to file an amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or a complaint under 42 U.S.C.

7

§ 1983." Id. Under the terms of the remand from the court of appeals, Munoz's declining to take

8

either alternative puts an end to this action.

9
10
11
12

Reasonable jurists would not find the court's decision to be debatable or wrong, and the
court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. The clerk of the court is
directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close this action.

13

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that a certificate of appealability will not

14

issue. DATED: February 25, 2022.

15

______________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2