NASH v. STATE

Case No. 2:16-cv-00819-RFB-GWF.

NANCY E. NASH, Petitioner, v. STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Respondents.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus (General)
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Nancy E. Nash, Petitioner, Pro Se.


ORDER

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, District Judge.

Petitioner Nancy E. Nash has submitted a pro se "informal brief," and a motion for leave to file a new petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 2). She has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing fee. Thus, this case has not been properly commenced and is subject to dismissal on that basis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and Local Rule LSR1-2.

Moreover, the court may take judicial notice of its docket, and Nash has another habeas petition pending in this court challenging the same judgment of conviction, state case no. C237504 (See ECF No. 1-2; 2:16-cv-00901-JCM-NJK).

"AEDPA generally limits a petitioner to one federal habeas corpus motion and precludes "second or successive" habeas corpus petitions unless the petitioner meets certain narrow requirements. The statute provides that a claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless it relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable or on newly discovered facts that show a high probability of actual innocence." Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 825, 834 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Accordingly, this petition is duplicative and is also dismissed on that basis. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice as duplicative.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent necessary in this procedural context, a certificate of appealability is DENIED, as jurists of reason would not find the court's dismissal of this duplicative action to be debatable or incorrect.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases