Keith Donald v. Aaron D. Ford, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 30, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-01278
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Keith Donald, Case No.: 2:26-cv-01278-APG-BNW

4 Petitioner Order Dismissing Petition Without Prejudice 5 v. [ECF No. 1-1] 6 Aaron D. Ford, et al.,

7 Respondents

8 Pro se Petitioner Keith Donald has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 9 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 1). On initial review under the Habeas Rules, I dismiss the petition 10 without prejudice and direct the Clerk of the Court to close this case. 11 Pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge must examine the habeas petition and 12 order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez 13 v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). This rule allows courts to screen and dismiss 14 petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or plagued by 15 procedural defects. Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998); Hendricks v. 16 Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). 17 Here, the petition is subject to substantial defect. To state a claim a habeas petitioner 18 must demonstrate that he is entitled to release from confinement because he is “in custody in 19 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). 20 Donald refers to a North Las Vegas January 2025 conviction and it is unclear if Donald is 21 challenging a Nevada state criminal conviction. Nonetheless, Donald is not in custody pursuant 22 to a criminal conviction. 23 1 “‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,’ possessing ‘only power authorized by 2 the Constitution and statute.’” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013). “If the Court 3 determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the 4 action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). See also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick, 505 F.2d

5 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974). Federal courts are “presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case 6 unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” A-Z Int’l v. Phillips, 749 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 7 2003). 8 In order to obtain habeas relief under Section 2254, the petitioner must demonstrate that 9 he is “in custody.” 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). A federal district court may only consider 10 a habeas petition if the petitioner was in custody at the time of filing of the federal 11 petition. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989) (per curiam); Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 12 976, 978-79 (9th Cir. 2010). I note that Donald’s claims also appear non-cognizable in federal 13 habeas because success on the merits “would not necessarily lead to immediate or speedier 14 release.”1 See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, as

15 Petitioner was not in custody when he filed his federal petition as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 16 2254, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant him habeas relief. 17 I THEREFORE ORDER: 18 1. Petitioner Keith Donald’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed 19 without prejudice. 20 21

22 1 A claim is cognizable under Section 2254 only if it falls within the “core” of habeas. Nettles, 830 F.3d at 930. If success on a habeas claim would not necessarily lead to a petitioner’s 23 immediate or earlier release from custody, the claim does not fall within “the core of habeas corpus.” Id. 1 2. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Clerk will make 2 informal electronic service upon the respondents by adding Nevada Attorney General 3 Aaron D. Ford as counsel for the respondents and to provide the respondents an 4 electronic copy of all 1tems previously filed in this case by regenerating the Notice of 5 Electronic Filing to the office of the AG only. No response is required from respondents 6 other than to respond to any orders of a reviewing court. 7 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 8 4. Acertificate of appealability is denied because jurists of reason would not find debatable 9 whether the Court is correct in dismissing this action. DATED this 30th day of June, 2026. 1] 12 ANDREW P. GORDON B CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23