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)
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?