Vincent Freeman, II v. Jeremy Bean, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 16, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01747
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 VINCENT FREEMAN, II, Case No. 2:25-cv-01747-GMN-BNW

6 Petitioner, v. ORDER 7 JEREMY BEAN, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 Petitioner Vincent Freeman, II, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 11 No. 1-1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter comes before the Court for initial review 12 under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases1 as well as consideration of Freeman’s 13 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP” ECF No. 1)) and Motion for Appointment of 14 Counsel (ECF No. 1). For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants his IFP Application and 15 defers consideration of his Motion for Appointment of Counsel. In addition, the Court orders 16 Freeman to show cause in writing as to why this action should not be dismissed without 17 prejudice for failure to exhaust his claims in Nevada courts.2 18 Background 19 Freeman challenges a 2023 conviction and sentence imposed by the Eighth Judicial 20 District Court for Clark County. See State of Nevada v. Freeman, Case No. C-22-369635-1. A 21 jury found Freeman guilty of two counts of Battery Constituting Domestic Violence, Third 22 Offense Within Seven Years. The state court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced 23 him to consecutive terms of 24 to 60 months. 24 The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction on direct appeal. In 25

26 1 All references to a “Habeas Rule” or the “Habeas Rules” in this order identify the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 27 2 The Court defers consideration of Freeman’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel until after 28 Freeman has responded to the Order to Show Cause. 1 March 2025, Freeman filed a state habeas Petition and the state district court denied relief in 2 September 2025. See Freeman v. Williams, Case No. A-25-914790-W. It does not appear that 3 Freeman filed a post-conviction appeal. In September 2025, Freeman initiated this federal 4 habeas corpus proceeding pro se. ECF No. 1. 5 Discussion 6 Pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge must examine the habeas petition and 7 order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez 8 v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). This rule allows courts to screen and dismiss 9 petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or plagued by 10 procedural defects. Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998); Hendricks v. 11 Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). 12 AEDPA requires petitioners to exhaust state court remedies before presenting claims to 13 the federal courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). 14 “A petitioner has exhausted his federal claims when he has fully and fairly presented them to the 15 state courts.” Woods v. Sinclair, 764 F.3d 1109, 1129 (9th Cir. 2014). Fair presentation requires 16 a petitioner to present the state courts with both the operative facts and the federal legal theory 17 upon which the claim is based, id. (quoting Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162–63 (1996)), 18 and to do so in accordance with established state procedures, Kellotat v. Cupp, 719 F.2d 1027, 19 1030 (9th Cir. 1983). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a claim must have been raised 20 through one complete round of either direct appeal or collateral proceedings to the highest state 21 court level of review available. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844–45 (1999); Peterson v. 22 Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 23 Here, it appears likely that the petition is wholly unexhausted in state court and is subject 24 to dismissal without prejudice. Although Freeman filed a direct appeal of his judgment of 25 conviction, it does not appear that he asserted the same claims that he alleges in his federal 26 habeas Petition. In addition, Freeman did not appeal his state habeas Petition and thus those 27 claims have not been raised through one complete round to the highest state court level of review 28 available. Accordingly, Freeman will be required to show cause in writing within 30 days of the 1 || date of this order, why this action should not be dismissed because of his failure to exhaust his 2 || claims in Nevada courts. 3 Conclusion 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 5 1. Petitioner Vincent Freeman, II must file within 30 days of the date of this order, a 6 “Response to Order to Show Cause,” in writing, showing cause why this action 7 should not be dismissed without prejudice based on his failure to exhaust his claims 8 in Nevada Courts. Freeman’s response must be factually detailed, and, where 9 possible, supported by exhibits. 10 2. If Freeman fails to timely and fully comply with this order, the Court will dismiss this 11 action without prejudice and without further advance notice. 12 3. Freeman’s Application to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted. 13 4. The Court defers consideration of Freeman’s Motion for Appointment of counsel 14 (ECF No. 1) until Freeman has responded to the Order to Show Cause. I5 DATED: Qetober 16, 2025 Yj, M GLOR A NAVARRO 18 UNITEP’STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28