Devonte Burton v. U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01403
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 Devonte Burton, Case No. 2:25-cv-01403-ART-EJY

6 Petitioner, ORDER v. 7 U.S. District Court for the District of 8 Nevada, et al.,

9 Respondents.

10 11 Pro se Petitioner Devonte Burton commenced this habeas action by filing a 12 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF Nos. 1-1, 5) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This 13 habeas matter is before the Court for initial review under the Rules Governing 14 Section 2254 Cases.1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses the 15 § 2241 petition without prejudice to Burton raising his claims in his ongoing 16 federal criminal matter. 17 Pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge must examine the habeas 18 petition and order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not 19 entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). 20 The rule allows courts to screen and dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, 21 vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or plagued by procedural defects. 22 See Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 23 Based on the scant information from the petition, it appears that Burton 24 seeks to challenge his ongoing federal criminal matter. See USA v. Burton, Case 25 No. 2:24-cr-00064-RFB-EJY-10. Habeas corpus is not the appropriate vehicle for 26

27 1 All references to a “Habeas Rule” or the “Habeas Rules” in this order identify the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 28 1 || Burton’s pretrial challenges to his federal criminal proceedings. See United States 2 || v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir. 1997) (allowing defendants to simultaneously 3 || pursue both § 2241 petitions and raise challenges in their criminal proceedings 4 || “would eviscerate [the] goal of judicial economy by engaging the attention of two 5 || courts on the same case at the same time”); Thoresen v. Goodwin, 404 F.2d 338, 6 || 339 (9th Cir. 1968) (“Trial, and not habeas corpus, is the appropriate manner of 7 || resolving the issue of guilt of the federal crime and subordinate issues relating to 8 || elements of the crime.”). 9 Burton’s claims should be raised in his ongoing criminal case, not in a 10 || pretrial 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Accordingly, the Court denies the petition 11 || without prejudice to Burton raising his claims in his ongoing federal criminal 12 || matter and dismisses this action. 13 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED: 14 1. Petitioner Devonte Burton’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 15 No. 1-1, 5) is denied without prejudice to Burton raising his claims in 16 his ongoing federal criminal matter and this action is dismissed. 17 2. Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability, as jurists of reason 18 would not find the Court’s dismissal of the petition to be debatable or 19 wrong. 20 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter final judgment accordingly 21 and close this case. 22 DATED THIS 8 day of October, 2025. 23 i dan 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28