Davis v. Warden Willian Gittere ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 TERRANCE A. DAVIS, Case No. 2:23-cv-01732-MMD-MDC 7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8 9 WARDEN WILLIAM GITTERE, et al., 10 Respondents. 11 12 On October 24, 2023, pro se Petitioner Terrance A. Davis filed a Petition for Writ 13 of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF 14 Nos. 1-1 (“Petition”), 1-2 (“Motion”).) Following an initial review of the Petition, on 15 November 8, 2023, this Court ordered Davis to show cause why his Petition should not 16 be dismissed as untimely and/or unexhausted. (ECF No. 5.) Davis was warned that if he 17 did “not timely respond to th[e] order [to show cause], the Petition [would] be dismissed 18 without further advance notice.” (Id. at 6.) Rather than responding to this Court’s order to 19 show cause, Davis filed another motion for appointment of counsel and a notice of appeal. 20 (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) On March 27, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 21 Circuit dismissed Davis’s appeal based on a lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 11.) 22 Davis’s deadline to respond to this Court’s order to show cause expired on 23 December 26, 2023.1 To date, Davis has not filed a response to the order to show cause, 24 requested an extension of time, or taken any other action to prosecute this case. 25 26 1This Court waited to take any action on Davis’s failure to meet this deadline until after Davis’s appeal was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 27 Circuit. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (“The 1 It is therefore ordered that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2 || § 2254 (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed with prejudice based on Petitioner Terrance A. Davis's 3 || failure to comply with the Court’s Order (ECF No. 5). 4 It is further ordered that the motions for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 1-2, 6) 5 || are denied as moot. 6 It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability is denied, as jurists of reason 7 || would not find dismissal of the Petition for the reasons stated herein to be debatable or 8 || wrong. 9 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court: (1) file the Petition (ECF No. 1-1); (2) 10 || add Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford as counsel for Respondents?; (3) informally 11 || serve the Nevada Attorney General with the Petition (ECF No. 1-1), this order, and all 12 || other filings in this matter by sending notices of electronic filing to the Nevada Attorney 13 || General’s Office; (4) enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing this action with 14 || prejudice; and (5) close this case. 15 DATED THIS 1* Day of April 2024. 16 17 4 ( | . 18 MIRANDA M. DU 49 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 || on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”). 20 2No response is required from Respondents other than to respond to any orders 27 || of a reviewing court. 28