Motley v. State of Nevada

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 COURTNEY MOTLEY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00326-RCJ-CLB 5 Petitioner, v. 7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 8 Respondents. 9

10 11 12 Courtney Motley initiated this action pro se on June 2, 2020, by submitting to the 13 Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and an Application to Proceed in Forma 14 Pauperis. At that time, Motely was incarcerated at Nevada’s Ely State Prison; he has 15 since been released from custody it appears. See Notice of Change of Address (ECF 16 No. 30). 17 On July 8, 2020, the Court granted Motley’s Application to Proceed in Forma 18 Pauperis and ordered his petition filed. The Court also ordered Motley to file an 19 amended habeas petition, on a correct form, if he intended to pursue this action. See 20 Order entered July 8, 2020 (ECF No. 5). 21 On July 13, 2020, Motley filed an amended petition (ECF No. 6). In his amended 22 petition, as the Court understands it, Motley claims that he is—or was--held in custody 23 in violation of his federal constitutional rights because the duration of his prison 24 sentence was improperly calculated. 25 As it appeared in the amended petition that Motley had not exhausted his claim 26 in state court, this Court, on September 18, 2020, ordered Motley to show cause why 27 this action should not be dismissed. See Order entered September 18, 2020 (ECF No. 1 A federal court may not grant habeas corpus relief on a claim not exhausted in 2 state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); see also Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 3 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 4 U.S. 30 (2006) (exhaustion of judicial remedies generally required for habeas petition 5 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241). The exhaustion requirement is based on the policy of federal- 6 state comity, and is intended to allow state courts the initial opportunity to correct 7 constitutional violations. See Picard v. Conner, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971). To exhaust a 8 claim, a petitioner must fairly present the claim to the highest available state court and 9 must give that court the opportunity to address and resolve it. See Duncan v. Henry, 10 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curiam); Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 10 11 (1992). A claim is fairly presented to the state court if, before that court, the petitioner 12 describes the operative facts and legal theory upon which the claim is based. See 13 Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982) (per curiam); Picard, 404 U.S. at 275; 14 Batchelor v. Cupp, 693 F.2d 859, 862 (9th Cir. 1982). 15 Perhaps in response to the order to show cause, Motley filed a copy of an order 16 of the Nevada Court of Appeals. See Order of Affirmance (ECF No. 19, pp. 6–8, and 17 ECF No. 20, pp. 27–29). That document indicates that on August 28, 2020, the Nevada 18 Court of Appeals affirmed the state district court’s denial of Motley’s postconviction 19 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In that order, the Nevada Court of Appeals stated:

20 Finally, Motley appears to argue that the Nevada Department of Corrections failed to apply good-time credits toward his sentence and as a 21 result erred when calculating his sentence. However, Motley did not raise this claim in his petition and we decline to consider it in the first instance 22 on appeal. See McNElton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 416, 990 P.2d 1263, 1276 (1999). 23 24 Order of Affirmance, pp. 2–3 (ECF No. 20, pp. 28–29). There is no indication in that 25 order that Motley claimed in state court that the alleged miscalculation of his sentence 26 violated his federal constitutional rights, or any other right under federal law, as he does 27 in this case. Furthermore, it is clear from the Nevada Court of Appeals’ order that 1 || Motley did not fairly present the claim—whatever the exact nature of the claim was—in 2 || amanner giving the appellate court an opportunity to address and resolve it. 3 Therefore, it plainly appears from Motley’s amended petition, and the other 4 || documents he has filed, that his claim is unexhausted in state court and that he is not 5 || entitled to federal habeas corpus relief. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 6 || Cases in the United States District Courts. The Court will dismiss this action. 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Request for Records/Court 9 || Documents (ECF No. 16), and his Motion to Quash (ECF No. 25) are DENIED as moot. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability 11 || because jurists of reason would not find this Court’s ruling debatable. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter 13 || judgment accordingly. 14 15 DATED THIS 8th day of January, 2021. 16 17 . 18 UNITED STA S DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28