Crisman v. LeGrande et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying 6 motion to extend copy work; dismissing with prejudice this action; denying a certificate of appealability; directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 10/21/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
BRIAN CRISMAN,
10
Petitioner,

Case No. 3:14-cv-00636-HDM-WGC

11
vs.

ORDER

12
WARDEN LeGRAND, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
15
16
17
18

This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
by a Nevada state prisoner.
In this habeas action, petitioner is challenging a state court judgment of conviction entered in

19

1999. Petitioner signed his federal habeas petition and dispatched it for mailing on December 1,

20

2014. By order filed July 23, 2015, the Court determined that the federal petition in this action was

21

filed after the expiration of the AEDPA statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

22

Petitioner was granted thirty days in which to file points and authorities, together with such

23

evidence he may have, that demonstrates either that he submitted his federal habeas corpus petition

24

in a timely manner, or that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year limitations period

25

imposed by the AEDPA. (ECF No. 4). The time for filing points and authorities has long since

26

expired, and petitioner has filed nothing to indicate that he filed his petition in a timely manner or

27

that he is entitled to equitable tolling. Therefore, the Court will dismiss this action.

28

1

Additionally, the Court notes that on July 23, 2015, the Court received petitioner’s motion to

2

extend his prison copy work limit. (ECF No. 6). The motion was signed by petitioner on July 1,

3

2015. (Id., at p. 3). Attached to the motion, petitioner submits a financial certificate and his prison

4

inmate account for the preceding six months. (Id., at pp. 4-12). Given the date that the motion was

5

signed, petitioner’s motion was not responsive to the Court’s order requiring him to explain why his

6

petition was timely filed or why he is entitled to equitable tolling.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to extend copy work (ECF No.
6) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Reasonable
jurists would not find the dismissal of an untimely petition to be debatable or wrong.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 21st day of October, 2015.

14
15
16
17

HOWARD D. McKIBBEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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