Dryden v. Dzurenda

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided May 25, 2023·No. 2:17-cv-00704·Unknown

Opinion

Bryan Dryden, Case No. 2:17-cv-00704-JAD-NJK

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

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

1 ECF No. 63. 2 ECF No. 68. 3 ECF No. 69. 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, 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 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. 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 1] 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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dryden v. Dzurenda, (D. Nev. 2023).

Dryden v. Dzurenda (Dryden v. Dzurenda) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
263 U.S. 413 (Supreme Court, 1924)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
460 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Gregory L. Brown v. W. Muniz
889 F.3d 661 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)
Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam
334 F.3d 895 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)