Dryden v. Dzurenda

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Bryan Dryden, Case No. 2:17-cv-00704-JAD-NJK

4 Petitioner Order Denying Motion for Order Directing 5 v. the Lower Courts to Enter DNA into CODIS 6 Calvin Johnson, et al., [ECF Nos. 75] 7 Respondents

8 On March 23, 2022, I denied Petitioner Bryan Dryden’s petition for writ of habeas corpus 9 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Dryden appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied 10 Dryden a certificate of appealability on October 27, 2022.2 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 11 then granted Dryden’s counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 12 Dryden has since filed a motion requesting an order directing the state courts to enter 13 unidentified DNA into CODIS for identification purposes.4 But a federal district court does not 14 have appellate jurisdiction over a state court or state supreme court, whether by direct appeal, 15 writ of mandamus, writ of prohibition, an exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, or 16 otherwise.5 Generally, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents “a party losing in state court . . . 17 from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United 18 States district court.”6 Plus, Dryden has already received federal habeas review of his 19

1 ECF No. 63. 20 2 ECF No. 68. 21 3 ECF No. 69. 22 4 ECF No. 75. 5 See, e.g., Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 23 460 U.S. 462, 482–86 (1983); Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003). 6 Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 611 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). 1}}conviction. To receive further collateral review, he must secure permission from the Ninth 2|| Circuit to file a second or successive § 2254 habeas petition.’ 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to appeal [ECF No. 75] IS DENIED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent required, a certificate of appealability is denied. 6 Dated: May 25, 2023 1 RA Le USS. DistrictYudge Jenni Oe 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 3 7 See Brown v. Muniz, 889 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2018) (under § 2244(b)(3), federal district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain a petitioner’s successive habeas petition absent permission from the court of appeals to do so).