Munoz v. Smith et al
ORDER granting in part ECF No. 82 Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner shall have until 10/27/2017 to file a second amended petition that enumerates all the claims currently in ground 1 of the first amended petition that are addressable in federal habeas corpus. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 09/27/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
PETER J. MUNOZ, JR.,
Case No. 3:11-cv-00197-LRH-RAM
GREGORY SMITH, WARDEN, et al.,
Before the court are the first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 69),
respondents’ second motion to dismiss (ECF No. 82), petitioner’s opposition (ECF No. 83), and
respondents’ reply (ECF No. 84). For the reasons stated below, the court grants the motion to
dismiss in part, and petitioner will need to file a second amended petition.
When the court denied respondents’ first motion to dismiss (ECF No. 76), the court noted
that it might not be able to grant any habeas corpus relief on ground 1, because petitioner was
challenging the validity of his conditions of lifetime supervision but not the validity of lifetime
supervision itself. Petitioner would not be relieved of his current level of custody, and thus his
claims appeared to be outside the core of habeas corpus. ECF No. 81, at 3-5 (citing Nettles v.
Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), cert. denied 137 S. Ct. 645 (2017)). Nettles was
decided after the briefing on the first motion to dismiss had completed, and the court gave
respondents leave to file another motion to dismiss that addressed Nettles. ECF No. 81, at 5.
In the second motion to dismiss, respondents argue that Nettles bars consideration of ground
1. Petitioner admits that some of ground 1 are challenges to the conditions of lifetime supervision,
which are not addressable in federal habeas corpus, but that other parts of ground 1 challenge the
validity of lifetime supervision itself. Respondents then note that the problem with ground 1 is that
it is a vague collection of different claims of constitutional violations. The court agrees. For
example, petitioner claims that Nevada’s laws regarding lifetime supervision are unconstitutional to
the extent that they seek to implement provisions of the Adam Walsh federal legislation, without
any explanation of what those provisions are and how they are applied to petitioner. ECF No. 69, at
11. Petitioner should file an amended petition that abandons the claims for relief that are not
available under federal habeas corpus and that enumerates each claim for relief that does remain.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ second motion to dismiss (ECF No. 82) is
GRANTED in part. Petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order to file
a second amended petition that enumerates all the claims currently in ground 1 of the first amended
petition that are addressable in federal habeas corpus.
DATED this 27th day of September, 2017.
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?