Opinion
23-1631
01-23-2024
MICHAEL A. JONES, Applicant, v. WILLIAM HUTCHINGS, Respondent.
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
The application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition in the district court is denied as unnecessary. Because it appears that the applicant has not had a prior § 2254 habeas petition adjudicated on the merits, the applicant may file a § 2254 habeas petition without obtaining prior authorization.
We express no opinion as to the merits of the applicant's claims or whether the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(d) and 2254 are satisfied.
The Clerk will transfer the proposed § 2254 petition filed at Docket Entry No. 1 to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The proposed petition is deemed filed in the district court on July 25, 2023, the date on which the application was signed. See Butler v. Long, 752 F.3d 1177, 1178 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (assuming petitioner turned his petition over to prison authorities on the day it was signed and applying the mailbox rule); see also Orona v. United States, 826 F.3d 1196, 1198-99 (9th Cir. 2016) (AEDPA's statute of limitations period is tolled during pendency of an application).
Upon transfer of the proposed petition, the Clerk will close this original action.
Because the proposed petition is being transferred to the district court, we take no action on any pending motions.
No further filings will be entertained in this case.
DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; PROPOSED PETITION TRANSFERRED to the district court.