Opinion
2:23-cv-01349-JAD-BNW
10-13-2023
Matthew Travis Houston, Petitioner v. Jeremy Bean, et al., Respondents
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS ECF NOS. 5, 5
Jennifer A. Dorsey U.S. District Judge
I screened the petition for writ of habeas corpus in this case and dismissed the case without prejudice on September 6, 2023. I did so because the largely inscrutable petition does not appear to set forth any potentially meritorious claim that the custody of the petitioner, Matthew Travis Houston, violates federal law. I denied Houston's application to proceed in forma pauperis, finding that he is able to pay the filing fee. And I denied Houston a certificate of appealability because jurists of reason would not find debatable whether I was correct in dismissing this action.
ECF No. 3.
See id.
Ibid.
Ibid.
On September 25, 2023, Houston filed a motion for reconsideration, which I construe as a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). Much like his petition, Houston's 288-page motion for reconsideration is largely incomprehensible and includes a great deal of material with little or no apparent connection to the subject of the motion. Houston's motion does not make any showing that my September 6 order and resulting judgment were affected by mistake, inadvertence, or any other factor warranting relief under Rule 60(b).
ECF No. 5.
ECF No. 1-1.
While that motion was pending, Houston filed a “Renewed Emergency Suppliment [sic] and Ex Parte Motion to Reinstate Screening/Briefing.” That filing, too, is incomprehensible and appears to be a refiling of documents that Houston sent to, or received from, the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Nevada. Regardless, this document does not set forth any legitimate request for, or basis to grant, any relief in this case.
ECF No. 6.
Id.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and Response to Order Dismissing Action and Denying Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 5] and his “Renewed Emergency Suppliment [sic] and Ex Parte Motion to Reinstate Screening/Briefing” [ECF No. 6] are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability relative to this order is DENIED because jurists of reason would not find these rulings debatable.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Jeremy Bean is substituted for Brian Williams, Sr., as the respondent warden. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect this change. THIS CASE REMAINS CLOSED.