Fritsche v. The Attorney General of the State of Nevada

Opinion

* * * Case No. 3:24-cv-00499-MMD-CLB Plaintiff, v. ORDER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

Defendants.

Charles B. Fritsche, incarcerated at Lovelock Correctional Center in Nevada, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his convictions for sexual assault and lewdness. (ECF No. 1-1.) He appears to argue that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he is actually innocent. (Id.) He paid the filing fee, so his application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.) Because this petition appears to be a second or successive habeas petition,1 Fritsche was required to obtain authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before he could proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3); McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029-1030 (9th Cir. 2009); Henderson v. Lampert, 396 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court gave Fritsche an opportunity to show cause and file such proof as he may have to demonstrate that the petition is not second and successive. (ECF No. 6.) In response, Fritsche sent to the Court the notice that he received from the Ninth 1Fritsche seeks to challenge his 2009 state-court judgment of conviction. (ECF No. 1- 1 at 1.) He previously filed a federal habeas petition challenging this same judgment of conviction. See Fritsche v. LeGrand, No. 3:15-cv-00425-MMD-WGC, 2018 WL 5303322 (D. Nev. Oct. 24, 2018). This Court denied the petition on its merits and denied a certificate of appealability. Id. The appellate court also denied a certificate of appealability, and the United States Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari. (ECF Nos. 40, 44.) 1 Circuit acknowledging receipt of his application to file a second or successive petition. (ECF No. 7.) He also stated that he has heard nothing further from the appeals court about his application. (/d. at 1.) But this Court takes judicial notice of the Ninth Circuit docket, which reflects that the Ninth Circuit denied his request for leave to file a second or successive petition. See Fritsche v. Baker, No. 20-70574, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 11431 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2020). It is therefore ordered that the Clerk of Court detach and file the Petition (ECF No. 1-1). It is further ordered that the Petition is dismissed with prejudice as second and successive. It is further ordered that Fritsche’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) is denied as moot. It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability will not issue. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. DATED THIS 5" Day of February 2025.

□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE