Lopez v. GNLV Corp ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Alejandro Lopez, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00482-JAD-MDC 4 Petitioner 5 v. Order Denying Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 6 GNLV Corp., and Dismissing Action 7 Respondent [ECF Nos. 1, 1-1] 8 9 This habeas corpus action was initiated by Alejandro Lopez on March 11, 2024, when he 10 filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis1 and submitted a petition for writ of habeas 11 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for filing.2 I deny Lopez’s application to proceed in forma 12 pauperis because it is not on a form recognized by this court and is incomplete because it does 13 not include the required financial certificate.3 I deny the application to proceed in forma pauperis 14 and dismiss this action because Lopez’s claims are not cognizable in habeas. 15 Lopez states in his habeas petition that he is a pretrial detainee at the Clerk County 16 Detention Center in Las Vegas.4 Lopez names as respondent the “GNLV Corp,”5 against home 17 he filed a civil-rights action in this court back in 2017.6 That action was dismissed on June 25, 18 19 1 ECF No. 1. 2 ECF No. 1-1. 20 3 See LSR 1-2. 21 4 ECF No. 1-1 at 1. 5 Id. “GNLV Corp.” refers to the Golden Nugget Las Vegas Corporation, which operates the 22 Golden Nugget Las Vegas Hotel & Casino. See ECF No. 3 in Case No. 2:17-cv-1712-RFB- VCF. 23 6 ECF No. 4 in Case No. 2:17-cv-1712-RFB-VCF. 1 2021, under LR 41-1, for want of prosecution,7 and Lopez did not appeal. Now—more than two 2 and a half years later—Lopez claims in his habeas petition in this case that the dismissal of the 3 civil rights action was erroneous, and he requests that his civil-rights action be reinstated.8 4 Habeas Rule 4 requires federal district courts to examine a habeas petition and order a 5 response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. This rule allows 6 courts to screen and dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous.9 Lopez’s petition is patently 7 frivolous. He does not allege that his current incarceration is in violation of the laws or treaties 8 of the United States,10 and he does not seek release from custody. A prisoner’s claim is 9 cognizable under the federal habeas statutes only if it falls within the “core” of habeas.11 If 10 success on a habeas claim would not necessarily lead to a petitioner’s immediate or earlier 11 release from custody, the claim does not fall within “the core of habeas corpus.”12 Lopez’s 12 claims regarding the dismissal of his civil-rights action, and his request to have that case 13 reinstated, are not cognizable in this habeas corpus action. 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Lopez’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 15 [ECF No. 1] is DENIED. 16 17 18 19 7 ECF No. 73 in Case No. 2:17-cv-1712-RFB-VCF. 20 8 See ECF No. 1-1 at 8. 21 9 See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). 10 See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(b); 22 11 Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 930 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 645 (2017). 23 12 Id. at 931. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A 2\| certificate of appealability is denied as jurists of reason would not find the dismissal of this action to be debatable or wrong. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to ENTER FINAL 5] JUDGMENT dismissing this action and CLOSE THIS CASE. 6 “ine US. District Jtidge Jennifer A. Dorsey 8 April 8, 2024 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23