Conners v. Baker ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 DARRELL CONNERS, Case No. 3:15-cv-00372-RCJ-CLB 4 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE 5 v. 6 TIMOTHY FILSON, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 Petitioner Darrell Conners’s pro se federal habeas petition was filed on June 7, 2016. (ECF 9 No. 16.) This Court appointed counsel for Conners, and Conners’s counseled first-amended 10 petition was filed on March 24, 2017. (ECF Nos. 15, 34.) On March 29, 2021, this Court granted 11 a motion to dismiss, finding that this action was untimely and that Conners failed to demonstrate 12 equitable tolling. (ECF No. 73.) Conners appealed. (ECF No. 75.) On May 25, 2023, the United 13 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded this matter. (ECF No. 81.) 14 On August 10, 2023, this Court reopened this action and vacated its previous dismissal order. (ECF 15 No. 84.) This Court ordered Respondents to answer the first-amended petition. (Id.) On January 9, 16 2024, Conners’s counsel moved to withdraw as counsel, explaining that (1) a stipulation and order 17 were entered in Conners’s underlying state court case, which vacated his convictions and 18 sentences, and (2) Conners informed his counsel that he did not want her to represent him anymore. 19 (ECF No. 87.) This Court granted the motion to withdraw but noted that Conners could file a 20 motion for the appointment of new counsel if he so desired. (ECF No. 88.) Conners did not 21 respond. 22 On February 1, 2024, Respondents moved to dismiss Conners’s amended petition, arguing 23 that his first amended petition is moot given that the state court recently vacated his conviction sentence in his underlying case. (ECF No. 90.) Conners did not respond to the motion to dismiss, and his time for doing so has expired. Due to Conners’s lack of response to the motion to 3|| dismiss, the Court considers it unopposed. See LR 7-2(d) (“The failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion . . . constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.”). 6 On December 19, 2023, the state court vacated Conners’s judgment of conviction and 7|| withdrew his guilty plea. (ECF No. 89-6 at 2.) Given this status of Conners’s underlying criminal case, Conners’s amended petition no longer presents a live case or controversy and is moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). Accordingly, the Court finds good cause exists to grant 10]| the motion. 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to dismiss [ECF No. 90] is granted. This action is dismissed. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because 14] reasonable jurists would not find the dismissal of this action to be debatable or wrong. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly and close 16]| this case. 17 Dated: February 22, 2024 18 Koren ROBERT NES 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 20 21 22 23