Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mitchell v. Baca

United States District Court, D. Nevada

August 16, 2017

WILLIAM MITCHELL, Petitioner,
v.
BACA, et al., Respondents.

          ORDER

          LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the court is respondents' motion to dismiss certain grounds in petitioner William Mitchell's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 9). Mitchell opposed (ECF No. 24), and respondents replied (ECF No. 25).

         Preliminarily, the court considers Mitchell's request to file an amended petition. Two months after he filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss, Mitchell filed a motion for leave to file an amended petition (ECF No. 28) and attached a proposed amended petition (ECF No. 28-1). Respondents opposed (ECF No. 29), and Mitchell replied (ECF No. 30). In Mitchell's proposed first-amended petition, he raises verbatim the two grounds in his original federal petition (see ECF No. 28-1). He purports to add a third ground. However, proposed ground 3 is a claim that his state postconviction counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Id. at 11-12. As will be discussed below, this claim is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus. Accordingly, Mitchell's motion for leave to file an amended petition is denied.

         The court next considers respondents' motion to dismiss.

         I. Procedural History and Background

         On April 27, 2011, Mitchell pleaded guilty to: count 1 - conspiracy to obtain money under false pretenses; count 2 - obtaining money under false pretenses, victim 60 years of age or older; count 3 - first-degree kidnapping; and count 4 - robbery, victim 60 years of age or older (exhibit 13).[1] The state district court sentenced Mitchell as follows -- count 1: 12 months; count 2: 8 to 20 years; count 3: five years to life, with a consecutive term of 12 to 60 months for the age enhancement; and count 4: 48 to 120 months, with a consecutive 19 to 48 months for the age enhancement; count 3 to run consecutively to count 2 and count 4 to run concurrently with counts 2 and 3, with 945 days' credit for time served. Exh. 21. Judgment of conviction was filed on September 22, 2011. Exh. 32. Mitchell did not file an appeal.

         On August 6, 2012, Mitchell filed a proper person state habeas petition. Exh. 29. The state district court appointed counsel, and a counseled brief was filed in support of the petition. Exh. 59. Following an evidentiary hearing, the state district court denied the petition. Exhs. 75, 80. Ultimately, the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Mitchell's petition on April 20, 2016. Exh. 111. Remittitur issued on May 16, 2016. Exh. 112. Mitchell dispatched his federal petition for mailing on June 21, 2016 (ECF No. 4, p. 1).

         Respondents now move to dismiss parts of ground one on the basis that the claims are unexhausted and move to dismiss ground two as noncognizable in federal habeas corpus (ECF No. 9).

         II. Legal Standards & Analysis

         Ground 1

         Respondents argue that parts of ground 1 are unexhausted. State prisoners seeking federal habeas relief must comply with the exhaustion rule codified in § 2254(b)(1):

         An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that -

(A) The applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the court ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.