David Joseph Kuchar v. The State of Nevada

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 31, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02527
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 DAVID JOSEPH KUCHAR, Case No. 2:25-cv-02527-MMD-EJY

7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8

9 THE STATE OF NEVADA,

10 Respondent. 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Petitioner David Joseph Kuchar has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 13 Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 14 (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 1 (“IFP Application”), 1-1 (“Petition”).) This Court finds good cause 15 exists to grant the IFP Application; however, following a review of the Petition under the 16 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”),1 this Court finds that the Petition 17 is unexhausted and federal abstention is required. 18 II. DISCUSSION 19 Kuchar is a pretrial detainee in custody at the Clark County Detention Center in 20 Las Vegas, Nevada, awaiting sentencing before the Eighth Judicial District Court. (ECF 21 No. 1-1 at 1.) In his Petition, Kuchar requests that this Court dismiss his state criminal 22 charges or issue him a pardon. (Id. at 7.) Kuchar challenges his warrant, law 23 enforcement’s failure to read him his Miranda rights, and his inability to subpoena 24 witnesses. (Id. at 6.) 25 Habeas Rule 4 requires federal district courts to examine a habeas petition and 26 order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. This 27 28 1This Court exercises its discretion to apply the rules governing § 2254 petitions to 2 conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or plagued by procedural defects. See Valdez v. 3 Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 4 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). 5 Because a federal habeas petitioner incarcerated by a state must give state courts 6 a fair opportunity to act on each of his claims before he presents them in a federal habeas 7 petition, federal courts will not consider his petition for habeas relief until he has properly 8 exhausted his available state remedies for all claims raised. See Boyd v. Thompson, 147 9 F.3d 1124, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 1998). A claim remains unexhausted until the petitioner has 10 given the highest available state court the opportunity to consider the claim through direct 11 appeal or state collateral-review proceedings. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844- 12 45 (1999); Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The 13 federal constitutional implications of a claim, not just issues of state law, must have been 14 raised in the state court to achieve exhaustion. See Woods v. Sinclair, 764 F.3d 1109, 15 1129 (9th Cir. 2014); Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 2005) (fair 16 presentation requires both the operative facts and federal legal theory upon which a claim 17 is based). 18 Kuchar has not filed a state habeas petition.2 See State of Nevada v. David 19 Kuchar, C-25-395191-1. And Kuchar has not filed a case with the Nevada appellate 20 courts.3 As such, Kuchar has not demonstrated that he has fully exhausted his state court 21 remedies. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971) (holding that to properly 22 exhaust state remedies on each claim, the habeas petitioner must “present the state 23 courts with the same claim he urges upon the federal court”); Bland v. California Dep’t of 24 Corrections, 20 F.3d 1469, 1473 (9th Cir. 1994) (a claim is not exhausted unless the 25

26 2Judicial notice is taken of the docket records of the Eighth Judicial District Court, accessible at https://perma.cc/Y5GT-CXTV. 27 3Judicial notice is also taken of the docket records of the Nevada appellate courts, 28 accessible at https://perma.cc/8Z7K-G6GZ. 2 which his federal claim is based). As a matter of simple comity, this Court is not inclined 3 to intervene prior to giving the Nevada courts an opportunity to redress any violation of 4 Kuchar’s constitutional rights. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991) 5 (explaining that the exhaustion requirement is “grounded in principles of comity; in a 6 federal system, the States should have the first opportunity to address and correct alleged 7 violations of state prisoner’s federal rights”). 8 Further, Kuchar seeks federal judicial intervention in a pending state criminal 9 proceeding, which is simply not available to him. The comity-based Younger abstention 10 doctrine prevents federal courts from enjoining pending state court criminal proceedings, 11 even if there is an allegation of a constitutional violation, unless there is an extraordinary 12 circumstance that creates a threat of irreparable injury. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 13 53-54 (1971). The United States Supreme Court has instructed that “federal-court 14 abstention is required” when there is “a parallel, pending state criminal proceeding.” Sprint 15 Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72 (2013); see also Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 16 F.3d 965, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (federal courts generally abstain from granting any relief 17 that would interfere with pending state judicial proceedings). This case does not present 18 extraordinary circumstances. Defendants in state criminal proceedings routinely allege 19 that state criminal proceedings violate their constitutional rights, including fundamental 20 rights, which makes this a regular occurrence, not an extraordinary circumstance. 21 Kuchar’s situation is no different in substance from that of any criminal defendant facing 22 the potential loss of constitutional rights—including the most fundamental right to liberty— 23 in a pending criminal prosecution. Because Kuchar faces no extraordinary or irreparable 24 injuries, federal abstention is required. 25 Given the unexhausted nature of Kuchar’s Petition and Kuchar’s failure to 26 demonstrate that federal abstention should be set aside, this Court dismisses the Petition 27 without prejudice. 28 /// 1 || Il. CONCLUSION 2 It is therefore ordered that the IFP Application (ECF No. 1) is granted. 3 It is further ordered that the Petition (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without prejudice. 4 || Kuchar is denied a certificate of appealability, as jurists of reason would not find dismissal 5 || of the Petition for the reasons stated herein to be debatable or wrong. 6 The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Petition (ECF No. 1-1), add Nevada 7 || Attorney General Aaron D. Ford as counsel for Respondents,* and informally serve the 8 || Nevada Attorney General with the Petition (ECF No. 1-1), this Order, and all other filings 9 || in this matter by sending a notice of electronic filing to the Nevada Attorney □□□□□□□□□ 10 || office. 11 The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter final judgment and close this case. 12 DATED THIS 31% Day of December 2025. 13 14

16 MIRANDA M. DU 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 |} — SSS 4No response is required from Respondents other than to respond to any orders 28 || of a reviewing court.