Nguyen Hooker v. Kevin McMahill, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02265
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 Nguyen Hooker, Case No. 2:25-cv-02265-CDS-EJY

4 Petitioner Dismissal Order

5 v.

6 Kevin McMahill, et al.,

7 Respondents 8

9 Petitioner Nguyen Hooker has filed a counseled petition for writ of habeas corpus under 10 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1 (“petition”). For the reasons discussed below, following an initial 11 review of the petition under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”), I dismiss 12 the petition based on a lack of jurisdiction. 13 I. Background1 14 Hooker challenges a forthcoming conviction by the Las Vegas Municipal Court in case 15 number C1231065. Hooker was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”) and 16 sentenced to (1) complete, at his own expense, a court-ordered course on drinking and driving 17 education; (2) attend and pay for a Victim Impact Panel; and (3) pay a fine of $910, plus a $10 court 18 assessment fee and a $60 chemical assessment fee. ECF No. 1 at 2. Hooker filed a writ of 19 mandamus, challenging the municipal court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The municipal court 20 denied Hooker’s writ, Hooker appealed, and the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed. According to 21 Hooker, “[a]s of the time of the filing of the instant § 2254 petition, the Judgment of Conviction 22 has not been filed.” Id. 23 II. Discussion 24 Habeas Rule 4 requires the assigned judge to examine the habeas petition and order a 25 response unless it “plainly appears” that the petition is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 26 1 I take judicial notice of the Nevada appellate courts online docket records, accessible at http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do. F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). This rule allows courts to screen and dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or plagued by procedural defects. 3 || Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 4||1990) (collecting cases). 5 The federal habeas statute provides that this Court has jurisdiction to “entertain an 6 ||application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of 7 State court.” 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). Hooker fails to demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction to 8 |lentertain his Petition. First, the municipal court has yet to enter a judgment of conviction in this Second, Hooker is not in custody. See Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 822 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that “a petitioner must show that he is subject to a significant restraint upon his liberty 11||‘not shared by the public generally.’””); Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 351 (1973) (“The 12 ||custody requirement of the habeas corpus statute is designed to preserve the writ of habeas corpus 13||as a remedy for severe restraints on individual liberty.”); Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1183 (9th 14 || Cir. 1998) (“In general, courts hold that the imposition of a fine or the revocation of a license is 15 a collateral consequence of conviction, and does not meet the ‘in custody’ requirement.”). 16 || III. Conclusion 17 It is therefore ordered that the petition [ECF No. 1] is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 18||A certificate of appealability is denied, as jurists of reason would not find dismissal of the petition 19 ||for the reasons stated herein to be debatable or wrong. 20 It is further kindly ordered that the Clerk of Court (1) add Aaron Ford, Attorney General 21}Jof the State of Nevada, as counsel for the respondents,’ (2) electronically provide the respondents’ 22||counsel a copy of the petition (ECF No. 1) and this eo enter judgment, and (4) close this 23 / / 24 Dated: December 2, 2025 LZ 25 A D-Silva 46 [ Ipfited States District Judge / > No response is required from the respondents other than to respond to any orders of a reviewing court.