Williams v. State of Nevada

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 23, 2020
• Docket: 3:19-cv-00718
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * *

9 THOMAS L. WILLIAMS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00718-RCJ-CLB

10 Petitioner, ORDER v. 11 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 Petitioner has submitted what he styled as a pro se petition for writ of habeas 15 corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1-1). However, petitioner has submitted 16 an incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis. He has failed to include the 17 acknowledgement page of the IFP form (where his signature is required) or a signed 18 financial certificate. Accordingly, this matter has not been properly commenced. 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and Local Rule LSR1-2. 20 Further, while not entirely clear, it appears that Williams entered into a guilty plea 21 agreement on or about November 2019 in Nevada state court. A federal court will not 22 grant a state prisoner’s petition for habeas relief until the prisoner has exhausted his 23 available state remedies for all claims raised. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); 28 24 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner must give the state courts a fair opportunity to act on 25 each of his claims before he presents those claims in a federal habeas petition. 26 O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844 (1999); see also Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 27 364, 365 (1995). A claim remains unexhausted until the petitioner has given the highest available state court the opportunity to consider the claim through direct appeal or state ' collateral review proceedings. See Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 916 (9th Cir. 2004); 2 Garrison v. McCarthey, 653 F.2d 374, 376 (9th Cir. 1981). The court takes judicial notice of the fact that Williams cannot have exhausted his available state remedies before submitting this petition to federal court in December 2019. The petition is, therefore, dismissed without prejudice as improperly commenced 8 and unexhausted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the incomplete application to proceed in 8 forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall detach and file the petition (ECF 10 No. 1-1). " IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice as "2 set forth in this order. 'S IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and " close this case. 18 DATED: 23 January 2020. 19 20 7 | | 21 R®BERT'C. J S UNITED STATEf DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28