Opinion
3:23-cv-00638-ART-CSD
02-28-2024
MATHEW WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pro se Petitioner Mathew Williams commenced this action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on or about December 12, 2023. (ECF No. 1-1.) On December 20, 2023, this court ordered Williams to complete the following on or before February 12, 2024: (1) file a complete in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application or pay the $5 filing fee, and (2) file an amended petition on the court's form. (ECF No. 4.) Williams timely complied with the latter requirement, filing his amended petition on January 9, 2024. (ECF No. 5 (“Amended Petition”).) Williams moved for an extension of time to pay his filing fee, and, thereafter, paid his filing fee on February 20, 2024. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) This court grants Williams' motion for an extension of time to pay his filing fee; however, for the reasons discussed below, following an initial review of the Amended Petition under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court orders Williams to show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed based on a lack of jurisdiction.
The Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the Second Judicial District Court and Nevada appellate courts. These docket records may be accessed at: https://www.washoecourts.com/Query/DetailedCaseSearch and http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do.
Mathews challenges a 2012 conviction and sentence imposed by the Second Judicial District Court for Washoe County (“state court”). State of Nevada v. Mathew Lee Williams, Case No. CR12-0299. On November 29, 2012, the state court entered a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, for lewdness with a child under the age of fourteen years. Williams was sentenced to 10 years to life in prison. Williams appealed, and on September 18, 2013, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. Remittitur issued on October 14, 2013.
On November 19, 2013, Williams filed a state petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state court denied post-conviction relief on November 12, 2015. Williams filed a post-conviction appeal, and on July 13, 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. Remittitur issued on August 8, 2016.
On or about August 29, 2016, Williams initiated a federal habeas corpus proceeding in case number 3:16-cv-00505-MMD-CLB, challenging the November 29, 2012, state judgment of conviction. Chief United States District Court Judge Miranda Du denied Williams' petition on the merits on June 24, 2019, and judgment was entered. Williams appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Williams' request for a certificate of appealability on November 8, 2019.
The Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of this case.
Williams filed a second state habeas petition and third state habeas petition on June 25, 2018, and February 12, 2019, respectively. The state court struck Williams second state habeas petition and dismissed his third state habeas petition. Williams filed a fourth state habeas petition on September 25, 2019. The state court denied the fourth state habeas petition. Williams filed a motion to modify his sentence on June 7, 2022. The state court denied the motion, Williams appealed, and the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed on January 13, 2023. Williams filed a second motion to modify his sentence on March 27, 2023. The state court denied the motion, Williams appealed, and the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed on November 28, 2023.
II. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge must examine the habeas petition and order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). This rule allows courts to screen and dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or false. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). The court may also dismiss claims at screening for procedural defects. See Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).
“[A] federal habeas petition is second or successive if the facts underlying the claim occurred by the time of the initial petition, . . . and if the petition challenges the same state court judgment as the initial petition.” Brown v. Muniz, 889 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2018). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) provides, in relevant part, that a claim presented in a second or successive federal petition that was not presented in a prior petition shall be dismissed unless:
(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and
(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). Before a second or successive petition may be filed in a federal district court, a habeas petitioner must move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the petition. See Id. § 2244(b)(3). The district court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a second or successive petition absent such permission. See Brown, 889 F.3d at 667. “[I]n cases involving doubt about whether a petition will be deemed second or successive,” the Ninth Circuit has instructed “petitioners to seek authorization in [its] court first, rather than filing directly in the district court.” Goodrum v. Busby, 824 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
Williams' Amended Petition challenges the same November 29, 2012, judgment of conviction that was challenged in case number 3:16-cv-00505-MMD-CLB. And the petition filed in 3:16-cv-00505-MMD-CLB was decided on its merits. Importantly, Williams answered in the negative when asked whether “the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals [had] given [him] permission to file this successive petition.” (ECF No. 5 at 2.) Accordingly, this Court finds jurisdiction potentially lacking. As such, based on these issues, Williams must show cause why this action should not be dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction based on the Amended Petition being second or successive.
In his Amended Petition, Williams asserts that chapter 201 of the Nevada Revised Statutes was not properly enacted in accordance with the Nevada Constitution. (ECF No. 5.) This argument does not appear to present a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. Federal habeas corpus relief may be granted “only on the ground that [Petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Federal habeas relief is unavailable for mere violations of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (explaining that “it is not the province of a federal habeas corpus court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions”). The fact that Williams' challenge goes to the state court's jurisdiction does not alter this principle. “Jurisdiction is no exception to the general rule that federal courts will not engage in collateral review of state court decisions based on state law.” Poe v. Caspari, 39 F.3d 204, 207 (8th Cir. 1994) (petitioner's claim that the state court lacked jurisdiction to convict is not cognizable in federal habeas); see also Wright v. Angelone, 151 F.3d 151, 157-58 (4th Cir. 1998) (holding that a state court's determination of jurisdiction under state law is binding on federal habeas court); U.S. ex rel. Roche v. Scully, 739 F.2d 739, 741-42 (2d Cir. 1984) (“[N]o federal court to our knowledge has ever granted a writ where a state court's asserted lack of jurisdiction resulted solely from the provisions of state law.”); Wills v. Egeler, 532 F.2d 1058, 1059 (6th Cir. 1976) (“Determination of whether a state court is vested with jurisdiction under state law is a function of the state courts, not the federal judiciary”); Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting, without deciding, that it was “not persuaded that a constitutional violation necessarily occurs when the convicting state court acts without jurisdiction purely as a matter of state law”). Accordingly, even if Williams demonstrates that this Court has jurisdiction over this matter, it appears that his challenge to the state court's jurisdiction would not entitle him to federal habeas relief.
This Court notes, by statute and circuit rule, it has discretionary authority to transfer Williams' Amended Petition to the Ninth Circuit for consideration as an application for leave to file a second-or-successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (stating that whenever a court identifies a lack of jurisdiction, “the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court . . . in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed . . .”); 9th Cir. R. 22-3 (“If an unauthorized second or successive section 2254 petition . . . is submitted to the district court, the district court may, in the interests of justice, refer it to the court of appeals.”). If Williams desires this court to exercise this discretionary authority, he may state this desire in his response to this order.
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore ordered that Williams' motion to extend time (ECF No. 6) is granted. Williams' filing fee payment (ECF No. 7) is considered timely.
It is further ordered that within 45 days of the date of this order, Williams must show cause why this action should not be dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction based on the Amended Petition being second or successive. If Williams does not timely and fully respond to this order, this action will be dismissed without further advance notice.