WARENBACK v. NEVEN

Case No. 2:15-cv-01789-APG-VCF.

DOUGLAS HARRY WARENBACK, Petitioner, v. D.W. NEVEN, 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

Douglas Harry Warenback, Petitioner, Pro Se.

D. W. Neven, Respondent, represented by Jeffrey M. Conner , Nevada Attorney General.

Attorney General of the State of Nevada, Respondent, represented by Jeffrey M. Conner , Nevada Attorney General.


ORDER

ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.

This pro se habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 comes before the court on respondents' motion to dismiss petitioner Douglas Harry Warenback's petition (ECF No. 21). Warenback opposed (ECF No. 27), and respondents replied (ECF No. 32).

I. Procedural History and Background

On June 19, 2013, Warenback pleaded guilty to pandering of a child (exhibit 10).1 The state district court sentenced him to a term of 48 to 120 months. Exh. 13. Judgment of conviction was filed on December 17, 2013. Exh. 15.

Warenback did not file a direct appeal. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his state postconviction habeas corpus petition on April 14, 2015, and remittitur issued on May 11, 2015. Exhs. 91, 93. Warenback also filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Nevada Supreme Court. Exh. 70. The Nevada Supreme Court declined to exercise original jurisdiction and dismissed the petition without considering it on the merits. Exh. 74.

Warenback dispatched his federal petition for mailing on September 13, 2015 (ECF No. 11). Respondents now argue that Warenback's petition should be dismissed for failing to set forth any grounds with any specificity (ECF No. 21).

II. Current Petition is Insufficiently Pled

Respondents point out that for each ground of Warenback's petition, he tries to incorporate by reference claims he alleges that he raised in his state postconviction petitions. Warenback does not set forth even a brief factual basis for any ground on the form petition (see ECF No. 11). Moreover, he fails to even attach copies of the statecourt pleadings to which he refers. It is clear from Warenback's opposition to the motion to dismiss that he thought he was complying with the instructions that accompany this court's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 form petition by only attaching the Nevada Supreme Court orders affirming the denial of his state petitions and nothing else. However, it is not possible for respondents to discern with the necessary specificity the grounds that Warenback seeks to present to this court.

Accordingly, respondents' motion to dismiss shall be granted. However, Warenback has leave to file an amended petition that briefly sets forth for each of the grounds that he was trying to present what constitutional provision or provisions he believes was violated for each ground and briefly sets forth the factual allegations for each ground ON THE FORM PETITION ITSELF. Warenback is expressly advised that failure to file an amended petition in conformance with this order shall result in the dismissal of this habeas action with prejudice.

III. Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file and serve an amended petition in conformance with this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have thirty (30) days from the date of service of petitioner's amended petition to file a response that complies with Habeas Rule 5 and the provisions of this court's order dated January 4, 2016 (ECF No. 10).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days following service of respondents' answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for submission (ECF No. 33) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner is expressly advised that failure to file an amended petition in conformance with this order shall result in the dismissal of this habeas action with prejudice.

FootNotes


1. Exhibits referenced in this order are exhibits to respondents' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 21, and are found at ECF Nos. 22-26.

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