James v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01527
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 Kelvin L. James, Case No. 2:25-cv-01527-CDS-EJY

4 Petitioner Screening Order

5 v.

6 State of Nevada,

7 Respondent 8

9 Petitioner Kelvin L. James, a Nevada prisoner, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in 10 forma pauperis and a pleading seeking relief in relation to the validity and length of his prison 11 sentence. ECF No. 1. Because a habeas corpus petition is the vehicle for seeking such relief in 12 federal court,1 I must review the pleading under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus 13 Cases Under Section 2254. Having done so, I dismiss this case for the reasons that follow. 14 First, James’s pleading is on a form designed for federal prisoner’s moving to have their 15 sentence vacated, set aside, or corrected under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 1-1. State prisoners 16 seeking such relief must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on the form 17 provided by this court. LSR 3-1, Local Rules of Practice, U.S. District Court of Nevada. While 18 James could correct this defect by filing his pleading on the correct form, his pleading suffers from 19 more fatal flaws. 20 James raises two grounds for relief. His first ground is difficult to make out, but it appears 21 to be claim that the Nevada Department of Corrections has not calculated the length of his 22 sentence in accordance with Nevada law. ECF No. 1-1 at 5; ECF No. 1-2 at 5. Alleged errors in the 23 interpretation or application of state law do not warrant federal habeas relief. Hubbart v. Knapp, 379 24 F.3d 773, 779–80 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Jackson v. Ylst, 921 F.2d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 1990) (“noting 25 that [the federal court] ha[s] no authority to review a state’s application of its own laws”). Even if 26 James could provide sufficient facts to demonstrate that Nevada’s calculation of his sentence

1 “Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of 1}|implicates the federal constitution, he must first exhaust state court remedies for his federal claim 2||by providing the highest state court with a fair opportunity to consider the claim before presenting 3 to the federal court. See Poyson v. Ryan, 879 F.3d 875, 894 (9th Cir. 2018). Here, there is no 4|lindication that James completed state court exhaustion for his sentencing claim before filing his 5 ||federal habeas petition. 6 James’s second claim for relief is even more difficult to decipher than his first. It appears 7 ||that he is taking issue with Nevada characterizing his crime as voluntary manslaughter because 8||“voluntary” suggests an intentional act, while “manslaughter” suggests an unintentional killing. 9 || Because the claim is vague and fails to state facts establishing a possible constitutional violation, it subject to summary dismissal. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting summary dismissal is appropriate where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 12 ||palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false); see also Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes 13|| (providing that the petition must “state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error” 14|| (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (Ist Cir. 1970)). 15 I further note that James already has a pending habeas proceeding in this court challenging 16 ||the same judgment of conviction—James v. Gittere, Case No. 3:24-cv-00286-ART-CSD. Any claim 17 ||addressing the validity of his conviction should be brought in that proceeding. 18 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk 19 |lis directed to close this case. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied as jurists of reason not find my dismissal of this improperly commenced action without prejudice to be 22||debatable or incorrect. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF 24 ||No. L.] is denied as moot. / } 25 Dated: August 22, 2025 LZ

26 5 A □□□ Cristina D. Silva U ved States District Judge i)