Morris v. Baca et al

Filing 4

ORDER that this action is DISMISSED; that a certificate of appealability is DENIED; Clerk to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 04/06/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 10 11 BRENT MORRIS, Case No. 3:17-cv-00019-LRH-WGC Petitioner, ORDER v. ISIDRO BACA, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 15 Petitioner Brent Morris has submitted a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and has paid the filing fee. 16 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) provides that a federal court: “shall entertain an application 17 for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of 18 a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or 19 laws or treaties of the United States.” However, Morris claims in his filing that during his 20 arrest on state charges police unreasonably seized gambling chips from him in violation 21 of his Fourth Amendment rights (ECF No. 1-1). He claims that the charges were 22 dismissed, but the chips were not returned. While he may have a claim that is 23 cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he does not state a claim for which federal habeas 24 relief may be granted. 25 Morris acknowledges that this court dismissed his previous purported 28 U.S.C. 26 § 2254. See Case No. 3:16-cv-00212-MMD-WGC. There, Morris sought the return of 27 the same gambling chips at issue here or the equivalent payment. He now claims that 28 1 1 he has cured the deficiencies of his previous petition because he does not want the 2 $5,000 that the chips were worth, he simply wants “such relief to which he is entitled.” 3 First, it is entirely unclear what relief Morris seeks. Also, as with his earlier habeas 4 petition, even assuming that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by an 5 unreasonable seizure of the gambling chips, such allegations do not state a claim that 6 he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 7 Thus, the present action will be dismissed. 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED, as 10 jurists of reason would not find the court’s dismissal of this improperly commenced 11 action without prejudice to be debatable or incorrect. 12 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and close this case. 14 15 DATED this 6th day of April, 2017. 16 LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?