Bonham v. State of Nevada ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Bryan P. Bonham, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01317-JAD-NJK 4 Petitioner Order Denying Motions for 5 v. Reconsideration and Judgment on the Pleadings 6 State of Nevada, et al., [ECF Nos. 9, 10, 16, 18] 7 Respondents 8 9 Last year, High Desert State Prison inmate Bryan P. Bonham submitted what he styled as 10 a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus and exhibits.1 I dismissed the matter for two reasons: 11 Bonham’s application to proceed in forma pauperis did not include the completed financial 12 certificate and inmate account statements, leaving it improperly commenced;2 and Bonham 13 failed to state a claim cognizable in habeas because he filed to set forth any claim that his 14 judgment of conviction or resulting sentence is unconstitutional.3 Bonham has since filed three 15 motions for reconsideration and one motion for judgment on the pleadings. Because he has not 16 identified a legally recognizable basis for such relief, I deny all of the motions. 17 18 Analysis 19 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure entitles the moving party to relief 20 from judgment on several grounds, including the catch-all category “any other reason justifying 21 22 1 ECF Nos. 3, 4, 6. 23 2 ECF No. 5, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and Local Rule LSR 1-2. 3 ECF No. 5, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 1 relief from the operation of the judgment.”4 A motion under subsections (b)(4-6) must be 2 brought “within a reasonable time.”5 3 Bonham first states that because he is litigating several cases in state and federal court, he 4 was unable to timely file the financial certificate. Second, he argues that he “feels he can 5 possibly put forth a less complicated and more discernable or understandable pleading. . . .”6 He 6 explains that this action is not a challenge to his conviction, but rather an appeal of a civil-rights 7 complaint filed against the State and the Secretary of State in an effort to achieve fair notice of 8 what the law is and by what authority it was created and enacted.7 9 This explanation only highlights why this case was properly dismissed. A habeas action 10 is a very specific type of case—it must be brought to challenge the validity or duration of 11 confinement. Habeas relief is distinct from a civil-rights claim, so civil-rights claims cannot be 12 styled as, or contained in, habeas petitions.8 Because Bonham asserts no claims cognizable on 13 federal habeas review, I deny his motions for reconsideration. And because this case remains 14 dismissed, I also deny as moot his motion for judgment on the pleadings.9 15 16 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). 17 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 18 6 ECF No. 9 at 4. 19 7 Id. at 4–6, see also Bonham’s petition, ECF No. 6 at 1, n.5. 8 Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 20 749, 750 (2004)). 9 As I noted in my previous order, ECF No. 5, this court takes judicial notice of its docket, and 21 Bonham has been specifically advised previously of the court’s required form and of the requirements of § 2254(a). See 2:22-cv-01149-MMD-BNW; 2:23-cv-01174-RFB-NJK (both 22 dismissed for failure to use or substantially follow court’s form and failure to state claims for which federal habeas relief may be granted). Moreover, the docket reflects that Bonham has 23 filed numerous actions here, including several habeas petitions. See, e.g., 2:22-cv-01230-APG- DJA, 2:23-cv-01172-CDS-BNW. Conclusion 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motions for reconsideration [ECF Nos. 10, 16] are all DENIED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings [ECF No. 18] is DENIED as moot. 6 This case remains closed. USS. District Tudge Jenni fecA. Dorsey 8 April 19, 2024 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23