Eric Garcia v. State of Nevada

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 29, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00742
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 ERIC GARCIA, Case No. 3:25-cv-00742-ART-CLB

5 Petitioner, ORDER

6 v.

7 STATE OF NEVADA,

8 Respondent.

9 10 Eric Garcia, an individual incarcerated at Nevada’s Ely State Prison, 11 initiated this action on December 16, 2025, by submitting for filing a document 12 entitled “Motion for Post-Conviction Habeas Corpus Modification of Illegal 13 Sentence” (ECF No. 1-1) and an exhibit (ECF No. 1-2). The exhibit includes an 14 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1-2 at 3–5), which will be 15 denied as moot. On December 22, Garcia filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 16 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 3.) 17 Garcia is in state custody, serving an aggregate sentence of life in prison 18 with the possibility of parole after 20 years, on a conviction pursuant to a guilty 19 plea of lewdness with a child under 14 years of age and unlawful use of a minor 20 in producing pornography or as a subject of sexual portrayal in performance. 21 (See Garcia v. State, 2021 WL 614056 (Court of Appeals of Nevada, Dec. 19, 22 2021); see also https://ofdsearch.doc.nv.gov/form.php (search Offender ID 23 1241230)). 24 The Court has examined Garcia’s habeas petition under Rule 4 of the 25 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Rule 26 4 provides in pertinent part:

27 If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 1 the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the 2 petitioner. 3 The Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 4 instruct that “it is the duty of 4 the court to screen out frivolous applications and eliminate the burden that 5 would be placed on the respondent by ordering an unnecessary answer,” 6 particularly where the petition does not state facts “that point to a real possibility 7 of constitutional error.” Habeas Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes (1976 8 Adoption). Summary dismissal under Rule 4 is appropriate where the allegations 9 in the petition are vague or conclusory or palpably incredible, or patently 10 frivolous or false. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir.1990). 11 As the Court understands Garcia’s petition, he claims that the Nevada 12 district court in which he was convicted and sentenced was without jurisdiction 13 because of a defect in certain Nevada statutes, and/or in their enactment and 14 codification. See ECF No. 1-1. Garcia’s claims are patently frivolous and false. 15 This action will be summarily dismissed. 16 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s Application to Proceed in Forma 17 Pauperis (ECF No. 1-2 at 3–5)) is denied as moot. 18 It is further ordered that Petitioner’s Motion for Post-Conviction Habeas 19 Corpus Modification of Illegal Sentence (ECF No. 1-1) is denied. 20 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed. 21 Because jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the Court is 22 correct in this ruling, it is further ordered that Petitioner is denied a certificate 23 of appealability. 24 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly and 25 close this case; and to transmit a copy of this Order to the Attorney General of 26 the State of Nevada. 27 // DATED THIS 29th day of December, 2025.

4 ANNE R. TRAUM 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28