Jones v. State of Nevada

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Chris Jones, Case No. 2:24-cv-01556-CDS-BNW

5 Petitioner Order Dismissing Petition without Prejudice for Failure to Exhaust 6 v.

7 State of Nevada, et al., [ECF No. 9] 8 Respondents

9 10 In this closed habeas matter, petitioner Chris Jones, a pro se Nevada prisoner, has 11 submitted a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In November 2024, 12 following an order to show cause, I dismissed Jones’s petition without prejudice for failure to 13 exhaust. Although he filed a state habeas petition, such petition was pending in the state district 14 court. 15 On April 30, 2025, Jones filed another petition in this court. ECF No. 9. As indicated in 16 his petition, he filed a state habeas petition, but has not appealed the denial of his petition. Id. at 1. 17 As provided in my show cause order, to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a claim must have 18 been raised through one complete round of either direct appeal or collateral proceedings to the 19 highest state court level of review available. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844–45 (1999); 20 Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Jones’s claims have not been 21 appealed to the state appellate court and thus have not been raised through one complete round 22 to the highest state court level of review available. In addition, I instructed Jones to file his 23 petition in a new case following exhaustion of his claims in state court. Accordingly, there are no 24 grounds on which Jones may proceed. This habeas matter remains closed. 25 Jones is again instructed to file a petition in a new case following the exhaustion of his 26 claims in state court, including appealing the denial of his state habeas petition to the state 27 appellate court. 1 Conclusion 2 I therefore order that petitioner Chris Jones’s petition for writ of habeas corpus [ECF 3 || No. 9] is dismissed without prejudice. 4 I further order that to the extent necessary, a certificate of appealability is denied because 5 ||jurists of reason would not find debatable whether the court is ¢e rect in dismissing this action. 6 Dated: May 16, 2025 7 LZ 8 f Cristina Dt Silva 9 Unitéd States District Judge 10 : / ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28