Houston v. Bean

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 MATTHEW TRAVIS HOUSTON, Case No. 3:24-cv-00605-ART-CLB

5 Petitioner, ORDER

6 v.

7 JEREMY BEAN, et al.,

8 Respondents.

9 10 In this habeas corpus action, on January 28, 2025, the Court ordered the 11 pro se petitioner, Matthew Travis Houston, to show cause why the case should 12 not be dismissed as wholly unexhausted in state court. (ECF No. 4.) Houston’s 13 response to the order to show cause was due on May 28, 2025. (See ECF Nos. 4, 14 15, 22.) Houston filed nine documents in response to the order to show cause: 15 ECF Nos. 7/8 (identical), 9, 10, 16, 17, 18/20 (identical) and 19. 16 Houston challenges a conviction and sentence for aggravated stalking 17 imposed by Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court (Clark County) on December 18 8, 2021. The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed Houston’s appeal for lack of 19 jurisdiction based on Houston’s untimely notice of appeal. Houston v. State of 20 Nevada, No. 84281, 2022 WL 731981 (Nev. Mar. 10, 2022). According to Houston, 21 on May 26, 2022, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the state district 22 court. (ECF No. 1-1, p. 1.) It is unclear from Houston’s petition, however, whether 23 that action has been completed, or, for that matter, whether his direct appeal has 24 been completed. Houston states: “The briefing schedule for the direct appeal was 25 reinstated.” (Id.) 26 A federal court will not grant a state prisoner’s petition for habeas relief 27 unless the petitioner has exhausted his available state remedies for all claims 1 give the state courts a fair opportunity to act on each of his claims before he 2 presents those claims in a federal habeas petition. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 3 838, 844 (1999). A claim remains unexhausted until the petitioner has given the 4 highest available state court the opportunity to consider the claim through direct 5 appeal or state collateral review proceedings. See Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 6 916 (9th Cir. 2004); Garrison v. McCarthey, 653 F.2d 374, 376 (9th Cir. 1981). To 7 satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a claim must have been raised through one 8 complete round of either direct appeal or collateral proceedings to the highest 9 state court level of review available. O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 844–45; Peterson v. 10 Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 11 In his April 10, 2025, filing (ECF No. 9), Houston refers to Case No. 86972 12 in the Nevada Court of Appeals. In that case, in an order entered on February 3, 13 2025, the Nevada Court of Appeals addressed an appeal from district court orders 14 denying Houston’s postconviction petition for writ of habeas corpus. Houston v. 15 Johnson, No. 86972-COA, No. 87443-COA, 2025 WL 395702 (Nev. Ct. App. Feb. 16 3, 2025). The Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and 17 remanded the case to the district court for evidentiary hearings. Id. The case 18 apparently remains pending in the state district court. 19 In view of the allegations in Houston’s petition and taking into consideration 20 the documents filed by Houston in response to the order to show cause, as well 21 as the February 3, 2025, order of the Nevada Court of Appeals in Houston’s state 22 habeas action, this Court determines that Houston does not show that he has 23 exhausted in state court any claim for habeas corpus relief. This action is 24 therefore subject to dismissal as premature and wholly unexhausted. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice. 2 It is further ordered that Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability 3 || because jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether this ruling is correct. 4 It is further ordered that all pending motions (ECF Nos. 23, 24, 27) are 5 || denied. 6 The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close 7 || this case. 8 DATED THIS 16th day of July, 2025. 9 2 an 10 Yrs / UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28