Stevens v. Lombardo

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedJune 27, 2025
Docket3:25-cv-00281
StatusUnknown

This text of Stevens v. Lombardo (Stevens v. Lombardo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stevens v. Lombardo, (D. Nev. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 THEODORE STEVENS, Case No. 3:25-cv-00281-MMD-CSD

7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8

9 JOE LOMBARDO, et al., Respondents. 10 11 Petitioner Theodore Stevens has submitted a pro se petition for writ of habeas 12 corpus. (ECF No. 1-1 (“Petition”).) The Court has reviewed the Petition and dismisses it 13 as second and successive. “Before a second or successive application . . . is filed in the 14 district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order 15 authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A). Where 16 a petition has been dismissed with prejudice as untimely or because of procedural default, 17 the dismissal constitutes a disposition on the merits and renders a subsequent petition 18 second or successive for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244. See McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 19 1028, 1029-1030 (9th Cir. 2009); Henderson v. Lampert, 396 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 20 2005). 21 Stevens indicates on the face of his Petition that he seeks to challenge his 2007 22 conviction of first-degree murder, arguing that his coerced confession violated his rights 23 under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). (ECF No. 1-1 at 1.) He submits his 24 Petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and argues that his sentence is illegal “for lack of 25 jurisdiction” due to the alleged Miranda violation. The Court’s docket reflects that Stevens 26 filed a previous federal petition in this Court in 2012. See Stevens v. Nev. Att’y Gen., 27 Case No. 3:12-cv-00081-RCJ-WGC. In April 2015, the Court denied that petition on the 28 merits in its entirety, and judgment was entered. See id. at ECF No. 49. The Court granted 1 a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the Miranda warnings given to 2 Stevens before his statement to a particular investigator were effective. See id. The Ninth 3 Circuit affirmed the denial of the petition. See id. at 55. The instant Petition, therefore, is 4 properly construed as a second or successive § 2254 habeas corpus petition. See 5 Henderson, 396 F.3d at 1053. Stevens takes pains to characterize the Petition as a 6 challenge to jurisdiction under § 2241 in order to avoid the second and successive bar. 7 This attempt is unavailing because the gravamen of the current petition is that Stevens’ 8 state conviction violated his constitutional rights. This falls squarely under § 2254(a).1 9 Stevens was required to obtain authorization from the Ninth Circuit before he could 10 proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). He cannot avoid that statutory requirement by titling 11 his Petition as a § 2241 petition. The Court accordingly dismisses Stevens’ Petition with 12 prejudice. And because reasonable jurists would not find this conclusion to be debatable 13 or wrong, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 14 It is therefore ordered that the Clerk of Court detach and file the Petition (ECF No. 15 1-1). 16 It is further ordered that Stevens’ Petition (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed with prejudice 17 as second and successive. 18 It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability will not issue. 19 It is further ordered that Petitioner’s motion to the court to issue order (ECF No. 5), 20 motion/request for stipulation (ECF No. 6), motion for order for respondents to produce 21 oppositions (ECF No. 11), and motion for prosecution (ECF No. 12) are denied as moot. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 ///

26 1“[A] district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on 27 behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 1 The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this 2 || case. 3 DATED THIS 27' Day of June 2025. ASA 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (Supreme Court, 1966)
John K. Henderson v. Robert O. Lampert
396 F.3d 1049 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Stevens v. Lombardo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-lombardo-nvd-2025.