Demoss v. State of Michigan

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 17, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01674
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 NATASHA NAKISHA DEMOSS, Case No. 2:22-cv-01674-MMD-DJA

7 Petitioner, ORDER

8 v.

9 STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.,

10 Respondents.

11 12 This action was initiated as a habeas corpus action by Petitioner Natasha Nakisha 13 DeMoss on October 4, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) DeMoss paid the $5 filing fee. (Id.) The Court 14 has examined DeMoss’s petition and will dismiss this action for the reasons stated below. 15 A federal court cannot grant habeas relief where the petition plainly shows that the 16 petitioner is not entitled to such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The court conducts an initial 17 review of each petition and orders a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner 18 is not entitled to relief. Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing 19 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”) (“If it plainly appears 20 from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the 21 district court, the judge must dismiss the petition . . .”)). Thus, a “petition is expected to 22 state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error.” Habeas Rule 4, Advisory 23 Committee's Note to 1976 Amendment (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 24 Any petition that is patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or 25 plagued by procedural defects may be dismissed summarily. See Boyd v. Thompson, 147 26 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990); 27 1 courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally 2 insufficient on its face.”)). 3 A habeas claim is cognizable only if it falls within the “core” of habeas. Nettles v. 4 Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 930 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Federal law provides two main 5 avenues to relief on complaints related to incarceration: a petition for a writ of habeas 6 corpus or a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 7 749, 750 (2004). If success on a claim would not necessarily lead to a petitioner's 8 immediate or earlier release from custody, the claim does not fall within “the core of 9 habeas corpus” and must be brought, “if at all,” in a civil rights action under section 1983. 10 Nettles, 830 F.3d at 931. In this case, there is no indication that DeMoss is in custody or 11 that success in this case would necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from 12 custody. 13 Moreover, DeMoss names Respondents over which the Court lacks personal 14 jurisdiction: the State of Michigan, the Governor of Michigan, the Michigan Department of 15 Health and Human Services Vital Records, and the Michigan Attorney General. Federal 16 courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., 545 17 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). The federal court “is obligated to ensure it has jurisdiction over an 18 action, and once it determines it lacks jurisdiction, it has no further power to act.” Guerra 19 v. Hertz Corp., 504 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1017-18 (D. Nev. 2007) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens 20 for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998)). “Federal courts have authority to grant writs of 21 habeas corpus ‘within their respective jurisdictions’.” Malone v. Calderon, 165 F.3d 1234, 22 1237 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241). A federal district court must have 23 personal jurisdiction over a habeas petitioner’s custodian to proceed with a habeas action. 24 See Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct., 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 25 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004). When a petitioner names a respondent outside of the district 26 27 2 1 || court’s territorial limits, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over that respondent. See 2 || Malone, 165 F.3d at 1237. 3 The Court recognizes that it could transfer this action to a court in which the action 4 || could have been brought, “if it is in the interest of justice.” See Miller v. Hambrick, 905 5 || F.2d 259, 262 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1631). However, in this case, because 6 || the habeas petition is fundamentally flawed, the Court determines that it is not in the 7 || interest of justice to transfer it to another district. 8 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed. 9 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 10 It is further ordered that, because reasonable jurists would not find the dismissal 11 || of this action debatable, the Court denies DeMoss a certificate of appealability. 12 DATED THIS 17 Day of October 2022. 13 14 4 (fr MIRANDA M. DU 15 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28