Opinion
2:22-cv-00991-APG-BNW
10-05-2022
DARRELL CONNERS, Petitioner v. STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Respondents
ORDER
ANDREW P. GORDON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Darrell Conners has submitted a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and has now paid the filing fee. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.) I have conducted a preliminary review of the petition, and it is dismissed for various defects.
First, the petition is not on this court's form, nor does it substantially follow the form, as required by the local rules. LSR 3-1. Further, it is entirely unclear what relief Conners seeks. He seems to argue that there was a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over his criminal case and invokes the 1898 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The main thrust of his argument appears to be that the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) lack an enacting clause, and therefore, are invalid and unconstitutional. But § 2254(a) provides that this court may entertain a habeas petition on behalf of a person who is in custody pursuant to a state judgment of conviction in violation of his federal constitutional rights. While Conners makes passing reference to the constitutional right to ineffective assistance of counsel, this court cannot discern what error(s) he seeks to raise. Conners' arguments are frivolous and do not state claims for which federal habeas corpus relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for failure to state claims cognizable in habeas corpus.
IT THEREFORE ORDER that the Clerk of Court detach and file the petition (ECF No. 1-1).
I FURTHER ORDER that the petition is DISMISSED for failure to state claims for which relief may be granted.
I FURTHER ORDER that a certificate of appealability is denied, as jurists of reason would not find the court's dismissal of this action for failure to state a cognizable claim to be debatable or incorrect.
I FURTHER ORDER that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly and close this case.