Houston v. Bean

D. Nevada

Houston v. Bean

DecidedJanuary 24, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-00031

StatusUnknown

This text of Houston v. Bean (Houston v. Bean) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Houston v. Bean, (D. Nev. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 * * * 8 Houston, Case No. 2:23-cv-00031-RFB-DJA 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 Bean et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 On October 31, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff Matthew Houston’s Motions to Reinstate 15 a Screening Briefing and Motion to Extend Time to File an Amended Complaint [ECF Nos. 22, 16 23 and 28]. ECF No. 29. Mr. Houston argued that an exhaustion of state remedies was not 17 necessary to prevent further injustice. The Court rejected this argument, noting that it previously 18 dismissed the case without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his claim in state court, 19 and to date, Plaintiff has still failed to exhaust those claims. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to 20 address the exhaustion issue in his briefings. 21 The Court’s October 31, 2023, order was a final order adverse to Mr. Houston. As such, 22 Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases requires this Court to issue or deny a 23 certificate of appealability (“COA”). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). Without a COA, Mr. 24 Houston “may not appeal that denial.” United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 25 2011). To issue a COA, the Court must find that Mr. Houston “has made a substantial showing of 26 the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Under this standard, the Court looks 27 for a showing that “reasonable jurists would find [this Court’s] assessment of the constitutional 28 claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Because the Court found that Mr. Houston’s claims were wholly unexhausted, the Court finds that no reasonable 3 jurist could find the Court’s assessment debatable or wrong. 4 ° IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Matthew Houston is DENIED a 6 Certificate of Appealability. 7 8 DATED: January 24, 2024 A 2 <1 "2 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, I 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

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

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 * * * 8 Houston, Case No. 2:23-cv-00031-RFB-DJA 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 Bean et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 On October 31, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff Matthew Houston’s Motions to Reinstate 15 a Screening Briefing and Motion to Extend Time to File an Amended Complaint [ECF Nos. 22, 16 23 and 28]. ECF No. 29. Mr. Houston argued that an exhaustion of state remedies was not 17 necessary to prevent further injustice. The Court rejected this argument, noting that it previously 18 dismissed the case without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his claim in state court, 19 and to date, Plaintiff has still failed to exhaust those claims. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to 20 address the exhaustion issue in his briefings. 21 The Court’s October 31, 2023, order was a final order adverse to Mr. Houston. As such, 22 Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases requires this Court to issue or deny a 23 certificate of appealability (“COA”). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). Without a COA, Mr. 24 Houston “may not appeal that denial.” United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 25 2011). To issue a COA, the Court must find that Mr. Houston “has made a substantial showing of 26 the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Under this standard, the Court looks 27 for a showing that “reasonable jurists would find [this Court’s] assessment of the constitutional 28 claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Because the Court found that Mr. Houston’s claims were wholly unexhausted, the Court finds that no reasonable 3 jurist could find the Court’s assessment debatable or wrong. 4 ° IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Matthew Houston is DENIED a 6 Certificate of Appealability. 7 8 DATED: January 24, 2024 A 2 <1 "2 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, I 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Houston v. Bean, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houston-v-bean-nvd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack