David Andrew Coil v. Terry Royal, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 6, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00342
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 David Andrew Coil, Case No. 3:25-cv-00342-ART-CLB

4 Petitioner, Order Dismissing Petition v. 5 Terry Royal, et al. 6 Respondents. 7

8 9 David Andrew Coil, incarcerated at Ely State Prison in Nevada, filed a pro se 10 petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1-1.) He paid the filing fee, so the 11 Court grants his motion to accept filing fee. (ECF No. 5.) The Court reviewed the 12 petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 13 States District Courts and directed Coil to show cause as to why the Court should 14 not dismiss his petition as second or successive to case no. 2:22-cv-01428-GMN- 15 16 BNW. (ECF No. 6.) 17 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) provides: “[b]efore a second or successive application 18 permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in 19 the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to 20 consider the application.” Where a petition has been dismissed with prejudice as 21 untimely or because of procedural default, the dismissal constitutes a disposition 22 23 on the merits and renders a subsequent petition second or successive for 24 purposes of § 2244. McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029-1030 (9th Cir. 2009); 25 Henderson v. Lampert, 396 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2005). 26 In case no. 2:22-cv-01428-GMN-BNW, Coil unsuccessfully challenged his 27 2017 state-court judgment of conviction. United States District Judge Gloria M. 28 1 2 certificate of appealability. Id. at ECF No. 18. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 3 also denied a certificate of appealability in December 2023. See Coil v. Attorney 4 General, No. 23-15401, 2023 WL 10407429. This petition, therefore, is a second 5 or successive habeas corpus petition under § 2244(b). Coil must obtain 6 authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before this Court may 7 consider his petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). 8 9 In response to the show-cause order, Coil filed an amended petition. (ECF No. 10 7.) He has not demonstrated that he has obtained authorization. He appears to 11 argue that this Court can entertain his petition because he is actually innocent. 12 (Id. at 1-4.) The remainder of the filing appears to be a mix of habeas claims and 13 argument as to why the dismissal of his first federal petition was improper. The 14 filing is silent as to the issue of Ninth Circuit authorization. This Court lacks 15 16 jurisdiction to consider this petition without the authorization of the Ninth 17 Circuit. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 at 152 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, 18 this petition is dismissed as second and successive. Reasonable jurists would not 19 find this conclusion to be debatable or wrong, and the Court will not issue a 20 certificate of appealability. 21 22 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s motion to accept filing fee (ECF No. 5) 23 is granted. 24 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court electronically file petition (ECF No. 25 1-1). 26 It is further ordered that the petition is DISMISSED with prejudice as set forth 27 in this order. 28 1 It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability will not issue. 2 The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 3 4 Dated this 6th day of October 2025. 5 6 j Vd ANNE R. TRAUM 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28