Wilson v. Secretary of State, Nevada

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 14, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00028
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JEFFREY MERRITT WILSON, Case No. 3:25-cv-00028-MMD-CLB

7 Petitioner, v. ORDER 8

9 FRANCISCO V. AGUILAR, et al.,

10 Respondents.

11 12 Petitioner Jeffery M. Wilson has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 13 1.) The Court has reviewed the habeas petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 14 Section 2254 Cases and concludes that it will dismiss the petition without leave to 15 amend.1 16 Rule 4 provides in pertinent part:

17 If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss 18 the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner. 19 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition 20 for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the 21 respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. See 22 Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2001). Allegations in a petition that are vague, 23 conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to summary dismissal. See Hendricks v. 24 Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). A petition for habeas corpus should not be 25 1While it is not clear that Petitioner brings his petition under Section 2254, the Court 26 nonetheless applies the Rule 4 framework. See 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rule 1(b) (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered 27 by Rule 1(a).”). 1 dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can 2 be pleaded were such leave granted. See Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 3 1971). 4 Wilson’s petition, which names Nevada’s Secretary of State, Francisco V. Aguilar 5 as the Respondent, is an assemblage of unintelligible and extraneous verbiage that is, 6 for all practical purposes, incomprehensible. There is nothing resembling “particularized 7 facts which entitle [petitioner] to habeas corpus relief” – i.e., “facts … consist[ing] of 8 sufficient detail to enable the court to determine, from the face of the petition alone, 9 whether the petition merits further habeas corpus review. See Adams v. Armontrout, 897 10 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added). 11 Moreover, a federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction in a habeas corpus case 12 depends upon petitioner’s status as a person ‘“in custody in violation of the Constitution 13 or laws or treaties of the United States.’” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989) 14 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (emphasis added by Maleng court). The “in custody” 15 requirement is determined by examining whether the petitioner was in physical custody 16 or under some other significant form of restraint at the time the petition was filed in federal 17 court. Id. at 491-493. There is nothing in Wilson’s pleading to suggest that he is currently 18 subject to a significant form of restraint. Indeed, the Court is unable to envision how 19 Nevada’s Secretary of State could be subjecting Wilson to the type of restraint necessary 20 to establish habeas jurisdiction. 21 Because the foregoing defects cannot be cured by amendment, the Court 22 concludes that it would be futile to grant Wilson leave to amend his petition. Accordingly, 23 the Court will dismiss his petition. 24 It is therefore ordered that the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is 25 dismissed without leave to amend. 26 /// 27 /// 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 2 DATED THIS 14" Day of January 2025.

4 MIRANDAM.DU ———<“i‘“CSCS™S 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28