United States District Court, D. Nevada
MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court are petitioner's amended petition (ECF No. 28),
supplement to the amended petition (ECF No. 29), amended
supplement to the amended petition (ECF No. 31), motion for
change of address (ECF No. 32), second motion for change of
address (ECF No. 34), supplemental memorandum (ECF No. 36),
and a notice of a defective criminal complaint (ECF No. 37).
Respondents have filed two responses (ECF Nos. 33, ECF No.
38). The Court has reviewed the amended petition and
Petitioner's other documents under Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts. The Court dismisses this action because
Petitioner's claims clearly lack merit.
Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, No.
C-14-295239-1, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was
convicted of, one count of attempted theft. Before Petitioner
pleaded guilty, he filed an interlocutory appeal in the
Nevada Supreme Court, No. 66372. The Nevada Supreme Court
This is a proper person appeal from an order granting a
motion to quash bench warrant and setting bail. Eighth
Judicial District Court, Clark County; Carolyn Ellsworth,
No statute or court rule permits an appeal from an order
granting the abovementioned motion. Accordingly, we lack
jurisdiction, and we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.
(ECF No. 28 at 26.) This order is the basis of almost all of
Petitioner's claims. On October 29, 2014, the state district
court filed the Nevada Supreme Court's judgment. The
docket entry states, “Nevada Supreme Court Clerk's
Certificate Judgment - Dismissed.” (Id. at
Petitioner's claims, other than the claims of conditions
of confinement that he cannot raise in habeas corpus, are
based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the Nevada
Supreme Court's order in No. 66372. Petitioner believes
that the Nevada Supreme Court ordered the state district
court to dismiss the criminal action, No. C-14-295239-1, for
lack of jurisdiction. From that belief, Petitioner claims
that all subsequent proceedings-conviction for attempted
theft, parole revocation proceedings, time spent in jail and
prison, etc.-were violations of the Double Jeopardy Clause of
the Fifth Amendment and done in the absence of jurisdiction.
belief is incorrect. He appealed a non-appealable order.
Consequently, the Nevada Supreme Court held that it lacked
jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The Nevada Supreme Court
did not hold that the state district court lacked
jurisdiction over the criminal case. The Nevada Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal. The Nevada Supreme Court did not
order the state district court to dismiss the criminal
case. Once the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed the appeal,
then the state district court could, and did, proceed with
the criminal action. In later appellate proceedings, the
Nevada Court of Appeals twice explained Petitioner's
error to him. (ECF No. 28 at 44-45, 49.) Petitioner's
premise is so fundamentally wrong that all his claims are
clearly without merit.
jurists would not disagree with this Court's finding that
Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of
a constitutional right. The Court will not issue a
certificate of appealability.
responses (ECF No. 33, ECF No. 38) note that Petitioner's
motions for change of address (ECF Nos. 32, ECF No. 34) note
that not only does Petitioner inform the Court of his new
address but also raise claims for relief. The Court agrees,
but the Court is dismissing the action for lack of merit.
event, Petitioner's motions for change of address are
moot. The Clerk of the Court already has ...