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