Barren v. Dzurenda ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 DONALD ROBIN BARREN, Case No. 2:24-cv-00976-GMN-BNW 6 Petitioner, v. ORDER 7 JAMES DZURENDA, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 Petitioner Donald Robin Barren, a pro se Nevada prisoner, commenced this habeas action 11 by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1-1) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This 12 habeas matter is before the Court for initial review under the Rules Governing Section 2254 13 Cases1 as well as consideration of Barren’s Ex Parte Motion re Amended Petition (ECF No. 7). 14 The Court instructed Barren to file an Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis or 15 pay the filing fee and file an Amended Petition on the Court’s required form. ECF No. 3. Barren 16 timely complied. ECF Nos. 5, 6. The Court summarily denies the Amended Petition because it is 17 without merit on its face. 18 Pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge must examine the habeas petition and order 19 a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. 20 Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). The rule allows courts to screen and dismiss 21 petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or plagued by 22 procedural defects. See Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 23 This Court denied Petitioner federal habeas corpus relief in 2012. See Barren v. Skolnik, 24 Case No. 2:09-cv-01202-RFB-VCF, ECF Nos. 71, 72. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death 25 Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) generally limits habeas petitioners to one round of federal habeas 26 review. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Barren has already received federal habeas review of his conviction. 27 1 All references to a “Habeas Rule” or the “Habeas Rules” in this order identify the Rules 28 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 1 || To receive further collateral review, he must secure permission from the Ninth Circuit to file a 2 || second or successive § 2254 habeas petition.” See Brown vy. Muniz, 889 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 3 || 2018) (under § 2244(b)(3), federal district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain a petitioner’s 4 || successive habeas petition absent permission from the court of appeals to do so). Accordingly, 5 || the Court denies the Petition and dismisses this action. 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 7 1. Petitioner Donald Robin Barren’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 8 No. 6) is denied. 9 2. Barren’s Ex Parte Motion re Amended Petition (ECF No. 7) is denied as moot. 10 3. Barren is denied a certificate of appealability, as jurists of reason would not find the 11 Court’s dismissal of the petition to be debatable or wrong. 12 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment accordingly and close this case. 13 DATED: July 18, 2024 14 4 M. NAVARRO 16 UNI STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, allows the Court to grant extraordinary writs where the 27 || Court has jurisdiction. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33-34 (2002). Thus, it does not provide an independent basis for jurisdiction for a petition for a writ of 28 || mandamus or prohibition. See id.