United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DISMISSING SUCCESSIVE PETITION AND DENYING
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [ECF NOS. 1, 2]
JENNIFER A DORSEY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
se Petitioner Kevin Brooks brings this petition for writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and moves for
appointment of counsel. Having conducted an initial review
under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts, I find that the petition is
successive, I dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction, and
deny Brooks's motion.
habeas petition in this action clearly is successive on its
face. Brooks challenges a 1991 conviction and sentence
imposed by the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark
County, Nevada. Brooks has previously filed at least 10
habeas actions in the District of Nevada challenging the same
conviction. After the court reached the merits of
Brooks's first habeas petition, his later filed actions
were dismissed as untimely, successive, or improperly
commenced. The Court of Appeals, too, has denied numerous
applications by Brooks seeking permission to pursue a second
or successive petition or requesting a certificate of
appealability as to dismissals of his successive petitions in
Brooks's first federal petition was decided on its
merits, he attacks the same judgment of conviction, and the
claims that Brooks raises here are based on facts that had
occurred by the time of the prior petition, the petition he
filed in this action is second or successive. Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3), before a second or successive petition is
filed in a federal district court, a petitioner must move in
the court of appeals for an order authorizing the district
court to consider the petition. A federal district court does
not have jurisdiction to entertain a successive petition
absent such permission. Brooks does not indicate that he has
received authorization from the Court of Appeals to file this
second or successive petition, and the records of the Court
of Appeals do not reflect that he has sought to obtain any
such authorization. Brooks's second or successive
petition must therefore be dismissed for lack of
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
action [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED for lack of
Petitioner Kevin Brooks's Motion for Appointment of
Counsel [ECF No. 2] is DENIED.
Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of
appealability because jurists of reason would not
find the dismissal of the petition on jurisdictional grounds
to be debatable or wrong.
Clerk of Court is directed under Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases to make informal electronic
service upon Respondents by adding Nevada Attorney General
Aaron D. Ford as counsel for Respondents and directing a
notice of electronic filing of this order to his office. No.
response is required from Respondents other than to respond
to any orders of a reviewing court.
Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT
accordingly and CLOSE this case.
 ECF No. 1.