Motley v. State of Nevada ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 Courtney Motley, Case No.: 2:24-cv-01567-APG-NJK 5 Petitioner Order 6 v. 7 State of Nevada, et al., 8 Respondents 9 10 This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed 11 by Courtney Motley, a Nevada state prisoner. 12 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 13 Motley has filed an in forma pauperis application with his petition. ECF No. 1. Based on 14 the information provided with his application, he is unable to pay the filing fee. Thus, I will grant 15 the application and direct the Clerk to file Motley’s petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 16 II. Review of Petition 17 I have conducted a preliminary review of the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules 18 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Rule 4 requires me to 19 examine the habeas petition and order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is 20 not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). The rule 21 allows courts to screen and dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, 22 palpably incredible, false, or plagued by procedural defects. See Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 23 1 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). Because I conclude that it is plagued by procedural defects, the 2 petition is dismissed without prejudice for the reasons discussed below. 3 Motley seeks federal habeas relief from a judgment of conviction entered in the Eighth 4 Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada adjudicating him guilty of numerous crimes, 5 including three counts of sexual assault, burglary, two counts of battery, two counts of coercion, 6 robbery, and first-degree kidnapping. ECF No. 1-1 at 2. In his petition, Motley alleges several 7 defects in the state criminal proceeding that resulted in his convictions. 8 A review of Motley's case in the electronic filing database for the Eighth Judicial District 9 Court reveals that his judgment of conviction was entered on May 6, 2024, and that he filed a 10 notice of appeal on May 29, 2024. See Register of Actions, Case No. C-21-360475-1, 11 www.clarkcountycourts.us. Not surprisingly, a review of the Supreme Court of Nevada’s 12 electronic filing database shows that Motley’s appeal is pending with briefing in progress. See 13 C–Track Appellate Case Management System, Case No. 88757, 14 www.caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us. 15 This action must be dismissed because all of Motley’s federal habeas claims are 16 unexhausted in state court. A federal court will not grant a state prisoner’s petition for habeas 17 relief until the prisoner has exhausted his available state remedies for all claims raised. Rose v. 18 Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). A petitioner must give the 19 state courts a fair opportunity to act on each of his claims before he presents those claims in a 20 federal habeas petition. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844 (1999); see also Duncan v. 21 Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). A claim remains unexhausted until the petitioner has given the 22 highest available state court the opportunity to consider the claim through direct appeal or state 23 collateral review proceedings. See Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 916 (9th Cir.2004). Because 1 Motley has not exhausted his federal habeas corpus claims in state court, his petition must be 2 dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4. 3 In addition, dismissal is appropriate under the abstention doctrine. Under principles of 4 comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal 5 proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances. 6 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971); Middlesex County Ethics Comm'n v. Garden State 7 Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982). Claims raised in federal habeas corpus proceedings are 8 included within the Younger abstention doctrine. Edelbacher v. Calderon, 160 F.3d 582, 587 (9th 9 Cir.1998); Carden v. State of Montana, 626 F .2d 82, 83–85 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 10 U.S. 1014 (1980). The doctrine applies when: (1) state judicial proceedings are pending; (2) the 11 state proceedings involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate 12 opportunity to raise the constitutional issue. Middlesex County, 457 U.S. at 432; Dubinka v. 13 Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994). Only in cases of proven 14 harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a 15 valid conviction, and perhaps in other special circumstances where irreparable injury can be 16 shown, is federal injunctive relief against pending state prosecutions appropriate. Carden, 626 17 F.2d at 83–84 (citing Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971)). 18 In this case, all three elements of the Younger abstention doctrine are present. First, 19 Motley’s state criminal proceeding is ongoing and has not reached final adjudication. See 20 Roberts v. Dicarlo, 296 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1185 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (finding the first Younger prong 21 satisfied because petitioner was awaiting the state court of appeal’s decision at the time he filed 22 his petition). Second, the State of Nevada has an important interest in passing upon and 23 correcting violations of a defendant’s rights. Third, the state court criminal proceedings afford opportunity for Motley to raise the constitutional claims asserted in his federal habeas 2|| petition. Finally, Motley has not advanced any extraordinary circumstance why I should not 3] abstain from entertaining the petition. Conclusion 5 I THEREFORE ORDER that Motley’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) GRANTED. Motley need not pay the $5.00 fee for filing this habeas corpus action. The 7\| Clerk is directed to file Motley’s habeas petition (ECF No. 1-1) and motion for appointment of 8]| counsel (ECF No. 1-2) as separate docket entries. 9 I FURTHER ORDER that the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk will 10]| enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 11 I FURTHER ORDER that the motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot. 12 I FURTHER ORDER that a certificate of appealability is DENIED as jurists of reason would not find this decision debatable. 14 Dated: August 27, 2024 13 Gm US. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23