Spisak v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 14 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider 12 Order. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 07/29/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

***

10
11

JOHN STEVEN SPISAK,
Petitioner,

12

ORDER

v.

13
14

Case No. 3:12-cv-00588-MMD-VPC

STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Respondents.

15
16
17

Petitioner had submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

18

U.S.C. § 2254 (dkt. no. 5). The Court directed petitioner to show cause why the action

19

should not be dismissed, because it appeared that petitioner had not exhausted his

20

available state-court remedies. Order (dkt. no. 4). Petitioner responded with documents

21

that did not address the Court’s concern. Instead, petitioner argued that the writ should

22

be granted because the respondents had not responded within the required time.

23

However, the Court never did direct respondents to respond because the Court noticed

24

a potential defect on its own motion. The Court dismissed the action. Order (dkt. no.

25

12).

26

Now before the Court is petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (dkt. no. 14). It

27

contains 16 pages of citations to statutes, including treason, and summaries of court

28

opinions. Again, petitioner does not address the apparent lack of exhaustion, let alone

1

how the Court erred in its ruling. There is no basis for the Court to reconsider its

2

dismissal of the action.

3
4
5
6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (dkt.
no. 14) is DENIED.
DATED THIS 29th day of July 2013.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE