Camacho v. State of Nevada et al
Filing
11
ORDER that this Action is Dismissed without prejudice. Denying as moot 2 and 6 Motions to Appoint Counsel and 4 and 5 Applications for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. A certificate of appealability is Denied. The Clerk shall enter Judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/11/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
LAURA BADILLO CAMACHO,
11
12
13
14
***
Case No. 2:12-cv-01834-MMD-CWH
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
STATE OF NEVADA,
Respondent.
15
16
Petitioner Laura Badillo Camacho has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas
17
corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (dkt. no. 1-1). On November 2, 2012, the Court
18
directed petitioner to file an amended caption page within thirty (30) days that named
19
the state officer who has custody of her as a respondent. This person typically is the
20
warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated. Rule 2(a), Rules Governing
21
Section 2254 Proceedings; Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th
22
Cir.1994). “Failure to name the petitioner’s custodian as a respondent deprives federal
23
courts of personal jurisdiction.” Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. The order was served on
24
petitioner at her address of record.
25
More than the allotted time has passed, and petitioner has failed to file an
26
amended caption page, or to respond to that portion of the Court’s order in any manner.
27
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. It
28
does not appear from the papers presented that a dismissal without prejudice will
1
materially affect a later analysis of any timeliness issue with regard to a promptly filed
2
new action.1
3
4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice
for lack of personal jurisdiction.
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following motions are DENIED as moot:
6
motion for appointment of counsel (dkt. no. 2); application to proceed in forma pauperis
7
(dkt. no. 4); application to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 5); ex parte motion for
8
appointment of counsel (dkt. no. 6).
9
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED, as
10
jurists of reason would not find the Court’s dismissal of this improperly commenced
11
action without prejudice to be debatable or incorrect.
12
13
14
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly
and close this case.
DATED THIS 11th day of February 2013.
15
16
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
With regard to timeliness, in this petition, petitioner states that she is challenging
a judgment of conviction dated November 29, 2009 (dkt. no. 1-1). The papers on file
and the online docket records of the Nevada Supreme Court reflect that the Nevada
Supreme Court affirmed the state district court’s denial of petitioner’s state
postconviction petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 11, 2012, as untimely (Case
No.59207, remittitur issued May 8, 2012).
From the foregoing it would appear that the federal limitation period on any
challenge to the judgment of conviction and sentence, unless otherwise tolled, has
expired. It does not appear from the available records that the federal limitations period
necessarily has expired as to any exhausted federal constitutional claim challenging the
computation of petitioner’s sentence. From the foregoing procedural history, it thus
does not appear that a dismissal of the present petition without prejudice will materially
affect an analysis of any timeliness or exhaustion issue as to a promptly filed later
petition. Nor does it appear from the available records that a dismissal of this
improperly commenced action without prejudice necessarily will be with prejudice in
effect. Petitioner at all times remains responsible for properly exhausting his claims, for
calculating the running of the federal limitation period as applied to her case, and for
properly commencing a timely-filed federal habeas action.
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
