Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Lyons v. Baca
United States District Court, D. Nevada
May 2, 2019
WILLIAM LYONS, Petitioner,
ISIDRO BACA, et al., Respondents.
MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
William Lyons has submitted an application to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and a motion pursuant to Rule
60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court
construes the Rule 60(b) motion as a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for the
reasons explained below. The Court finds that Petitioner is
unable to pay the filing fee. The Court has reviewed the
Petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts. Petitioner needs
to show cause why this Court should not dismiss this action.
Court takes judicial notice of Petitioner's prior habeas
corpus action, Lyons v. Baca, No.
3:14-cv-00173-HDM-WGC (“Lyons I”). The
Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Case
No. 00C171837, convicted Petitioner of two counts of sexual
assault with a minor under the age of fourteen and eight
counts of lewdness with a child under the age of fourteen.
Lyons I, ECF No. 11-12 (amended judgment of
conviction). In Lyons I, Petitioner challenged his
custody pursuant to that amended judgment of conviction. This
Court dismissed that action because it was untimely.
Lyons I, ECF No. 22. The Court of Appeals denied a
certificate of appealability. Lyons I, ECF No. 28.
restricts Petitioner's ability to pursue a second or
successive habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas
corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a
prior application shall be dismissed.
(2) 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-
(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule
of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable; or (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim
could not have been discovered previously through the
exercise of due diligence; and
(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in
light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for
constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have
found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.
(3)(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by
this section is filed in the district court, the applicant
shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order
authorizing the district court to consider the application.
(B) A motion in the court of appeals for an order authorizing
the district court to consider a second or successive
application shall be determined by a three-judge panel of the
court of appeals.
(C) The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second
or successive application only if it determines that the
application makes a prima facie showing that the application
satisfies the requirements of this subsection.
(D) The court of appeals shall grant or deny the
authorization to file a second or successive application not
later than 30 days after the filing of the motion.
(E) The grant or denial of an authorization by a court of
appeals to file a second or successive application shall not
be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for
rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.
(4) A district court shall dismiss any claim presented in a
second or successive application that the court of appeals
has authorized to be filed unless the applicant shows that
Buy This Entire Record For