Jones v. State of Nevada ( 2024 )

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Chris Jones, Case No. 2:24-cv-01556-CDS-BNW 5 Petitioner Order Dismissing Petition Without Prejudice for Failure to Exhaust 6 v. 7 State of Nevada, et al., [ECF No. 1-1] 8 Respondents 9 10 Petitioner Chris Jones, a pro se Nevada prisoner, has submitted a petition for writ of 11 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1-1. This matter is before the Court following 12 Jones’s response to the order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as 13 unexhausted. ECF No. 6. For the reasons discussed below, I dismiss Jones’s petition without 14 prejudice for failure to exhaust his claims in state court. 15 I. Background 16 Jones challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by the Eighth Judicial District Court 17 for Clark County. State of Nevada v. Jones, Case No. C-23-37362-1. On September 13, 2023, the state 18 district court entered a judgment of conviction pursuant to a guilty plea for coercion. Jones did 19 not file a direct appeal. In July 2024, Jones filed a state habeas postconviction petition for writ of 20 habeas corpus that remains pending before the state district court. See Jones v. State of Nevada, Case 21 No. A-24-898274-W. On August 23, 2024, Jones initiated this federal habeas case alleging claims 22 of ineffective assistance of counsel. ECF No. 1-1. 23 II. Discussion 24 The show cause order explained that Jone’s claims are subject to dismissal because they 25 are wholly unexhausted. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) requires 26 petitioners to exhaust state court remedies before presenting claims to the federal courts. 27 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). “A petitioner has 28 exhausted his federal claims when he has fully and fairly presented them to the state courts.” 1 || Woods v. Sinclair, 764 F.3d 1109, 1129 (9th Cir. 2014). Fair presentation requires a petitioner to 2 ||present the state courts with both the operative facts and the federal legal theory upon which the 3 ||claim is based, id. (quoting Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996)), and to do so in 4 |laccordance with established state procedures, Kellotat v. Cupp, 719 F.2d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 1983). 5 || To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a claim must have been raised through one complete round 6 |lof either direct appeal or collateral proceedings to the highest state court level of review available. 7 ||O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844-45 (1999); Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 8 ||2003) (en banc). 9 Here, although Jones filed a state habeas petition, such petition remains pending in the 10 ||state district court. In his response, Jones asserts that he was misinformed by a jailhouse lawyer 11 ||to file his § 2254 petition and that he did not want his petition to be time-barred. His claims, 12 ||however, have not been appealed to the state appellate court and thus have not been raised 13 ||through one complete round to the highest state court level of review available. Jones may file his 14 ||petition in a new case following exhaustion of his claims in state court. 15 ||IIL Conclusion 16 I THEREFORE ORDER that petitioner Chris Jones’s petition for writ of habeas corpus 17 || [ECF No. 1-1] is dismissed without prejudice. 18 I further order that to the extent necessary, a certificate of appealability is denied 19 || because jurists of reason would not find debatable whether the court is correct in dismissing this 20 |/action. 21 I further order that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and 22 |\close this case. *) 23 Dated: November 7, 2024 / / 24 . LZ 25 wither Uni tates District Judge 26 27 28 XY