1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No. 2:19-cv-01294-JAD-CWH 4 Tinamarie Lisa Lopez, 5 Petitioner v. Order Dismissing Action 6 ECF No. 1 7 State of Nevada, 8 Respondents 9 10 Tinamarie Lisa Lopez1 brings this habeas action seeking credit toward an earlier release 11 from custody. Because the petition is plagued by multiple procedural defects and itlacks merit 12 on its face, I dismiss this case. 13 Background 14 On August 29, 2018, under a guilty plea agreement, Lopez was convicted in the state 15 district court of one count of conspiracy to commit robbery and one count of robbery with the 16 use of a deadly weapon.2 On February 20, 2019, Lopez filed in the state district court a habeas 17 corpus petition that challenged the computation of time.3 The state district court denied the 18 petition on June 27, 2019, and served a notice of entry of order on July 1, 2019.4 The online 19 1 The court’s docket incorrectly spells petitioner’s name as “Timmarie Lisa Lopez.” 20 2 State v. Lopez, Case No. C-18-330472-1. 21 https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Portal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 (report generated August 5, 2019). For this case and other cases of the Eighth Judicial District Court of the Stateof 22 Nevada, the case number needs to be entered exactly on the search line. Petitioner’s name in the criminal case was spelled as “Tina Marie Lopez.” 23 3 Lopez v. Neven, Case No. A-19-789651-W. 4 ECF No. 1at 17–18. 1 docket of the state district court shows that the notice was re-served on July 24, 2019. Lopez has 2 not filed an appeal. 3 On April 15, 2019, while the state habeas petition was still pending, Lopez filed a federal 4 habeas petition under

This court denied thatfederal petition(Lopez I)a week 5 later for two reasons: (1) on its face, the petition lacked merit because petitioner was claiming

6 that the state courts misapplied state law, and that claim is not cognizable in federal habeas 7 corpus; and (2) Lopez had not yet exhausted her state-court remedies because her state petition 8 still was pending. On July 26, 2019, this court received Lopez’s current habeas corpus petition.6 9 Discussion 10 A. Incorrect Respondent 11 Lopez incorrectly has named as respondent the State of Nevada. The correct respondent 12 is the warden of the prison where Lopez is held.7 13 B. Second or Successive Petition 14 In Lopez I, Lopez presented a claim that the Nevada Department of Corrections was

15 misapplying state law to restrict her from earning statutory good-time credits. The court held 16 that the petition lacked merit on its face because “[f]ederal habeas relief is not available ‘to 17 reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.’”8 Because the court denied Lopez 18 I on its merits, the current federal habeas corpus petition is a second or successive petition. 19 Lopez was required to first obtain authorization from the court of appeals before she couldfile 20 21 5 Lopez v. State, Case No. 2:19-cv-00657-KJD-VCF. 22 6 ECF No. 1. 7 Rule 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 23 8 Lopez I, ECF No. 3 at 2 (quoting Estelle v. McGuire,

, 67–68 (1991)). 1 another petition challengingthe validity of her custody under the same judgment of conviction.9 2 Because Lopez has not obtained authorization from the court of appeals, I dismiss this action. 3 C. Alternatively, the petition lacks merit because it is a state-law-violation claim. 4 Petitioner claims that she is not receiving statutory good-time credit toward the minimum 5 term of her sentence and eligibility for parole under

(7)(b). Nevada’s

6 parole system does not create any liberty interests protected by the United States Constitution.10 7 As the court noted in Lopez I, this is purely a question of state law. This court cannot reexamine 8 state-court decisions on state-law questions.11 9 D. Alternatively,the petition lacks merit even if the court addresses state law. 10 Petitioner was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit robbery12 and one count 11 of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon,13 both category B felonies. Credits earned toward 12 an earlier release do not apply to the minimum term and parole eligibility of a person convicted 13 of a category B felony.14 Even if Lopez presented a claim of a federal constitutional violation, 14 that claim is meritless because the law is being applied correctly.

15 Conclusion 16 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to correctthe name of 17 petitioner to “Tinamarie Lisa Lopez”; 18 19 9

(b)(3). Additionally, the claim that Lopez presents in the current petition is the same claim that she presented inLopez I. That claim thus is subject to dismissal. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 2244(b)(1). 21 10 Moor v. Palmer,

, 662–63 (9th Cir. 2010). 11 McGuire, 502 U.S. at 67–68. 22 12

(1). 23 13

(2). 14

(8)(d) 1 IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED as an unauthorized second or successive petition. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. 4 And, finally, because reasonable jurists would not find this determination to be debatable wrong, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability will not issue. 6 Dated: September 9, 2019

U.S. Districtdadge Jennifer/A. Dorsey 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23