Opinion
Case No. 2:18-cv-00497-RFB-NJK
04-12-2018
LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
Petitioner Lausteveion Johnson has submitted a pro se habeas corpus petition but he has failed to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. Accordingly, this matter has not been properly commenced. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and Local Rule LSR1-2.
The court further notes that it is unclear that petitioner states any claims that are cognizable on federal habeas review and that it appears that his state-court proceedings are ongoing. See Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 74775. A federal court will not grant a state prisoner's petition for habeas relief until the prisoner has exhausted his available state remedies for all claims raised. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner must give the state courts a fair opportunity to act on each of his claims before he presents those claims in a federal habeas petition. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844 (1999); see also Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). A claim remains unexhausted until the petitioner has given the highest available state court the opportunity to consider the claim through direct appeal or state collateral review proceedings. See Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 916 (9th Cir. 2004); Garrison v. McCarthey, 653 F.2d 374, 376 (9th Cir. 1981).
This federal petition shall be dismissed without prejudice to petitioner filing a new federal habeas petition, in a new case with a new case number and a new, completed application to proceed in forma pauperis with the required financial information or the $5.00 filing fee.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk shall file and ELECTRONICALLY SERVE the petition (ECF No. 1-1) on the respondents, for informational purposes only.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall add Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada Attorney General, as counsel for respondents.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice as improperly commenced.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) and motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 4) are both DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
DATED: April 12, 2018.
/s/_________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE