Moore v. Howell

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 14, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-02110
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * *

9 JAMES LAMONT MOORE, Case No. 2:19-cv-02110-KJD-DJA

10 Petitioner, ORDER v. 11 JERRY HOWELL, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 Before the court is a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 15 U.S.C. § 2254, submitted by James Lamont Moore (ECF No. 1-1). He paid the filing 16 fee, and therefore, his application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied 17 as moot. 18 Moore states that he seeks to challenge his sentence structure, not the 19 convictions themselves.1 It appears from the petition as well as the attached exhibits 20 that he has a motion to amend judgment of conviction pending in state district court. A 21 federal court will not grant a state prisoner’s petition for habeas relief until the prisoner 22 has exhausted his available state remedies for all claims raised. Rose v. Lundy, 455 23 U.S. 509 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner must give the state courts a fair 24 opportunity to act on each of his claims before he presents those claims in a federal 25

26 1 It is also unclear whether Moore knew of and thus should have raised this challenge earlier and whether he is required to seek authorization to file a second and successive petition. Moore has previously filed at 27 least two federal habeas petitions challenging the same judgment of conviction – Nos. 3:04-cv-00343 and 2:12-cv-00965. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A) provides: “[b]efore a second or successive application permitted 1 habeas petition. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844 (1999); see also Duncan v. 2 Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2004). 3 A claim remains unexhausted until the petitioner has given the highest available state 4 court the opportunity to consider the claim through direct appeal or state collateral 5 review proceedings. See Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 916 (9th Cir. 2004); Garrison 6 v. McCarthey, 653 F.2d 374, 376 (9th Cir. 1981). As it appears that Moore’s state-court 7 proceedings have not yet concluded, it appears that his federal claim is unexhausted. 8 Accordingly, petitioner shall have 30 days from the date of entry of this order to 9 show cause and file such proof he may have to demonstrate that he has exhausted his 10 state remedies. If petitioner has failed to exhaust state remedies, his federal petition will 11 be dismissed without prejudice. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus. 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma 13 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED as moot. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall file and ELECTRONICALLY 15 SERVE the petition (ECF No. 1-1) on the respondents. No action by respondents is 16 required until further order by this court. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall add Aaron D. Ford, Nevada 18 Attorney General, as counsel for the respondents. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have 30 days from the date of 20 entry of this order to show cause and file such proof he may have to demonstrate that 21 he has exhausted his state remedies. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner is unable to demonstrate that he 23 has exhausted his state remedies, the court will enter an order dismissing the petition. 24

25 DATED: 15 January 2020. 26

27 KENT J. DAWSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE