1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Craig Ivan Gilbert, Case No. 2:20-cv-00385-JAD-NJK 4 Petitioner 5 v. Order Dismissing Petition 6 Eric Bossi, et al., and Denying Motions 7 Respondents [ECF Nos. 1, 4] 8 9 Petitioner Craig Ivan Gilbert has filed what he has styled as a pro se habeas corpus 10 petitionthat is not on the court-required form. Gilbert has also failed to submit an application to 11 proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee, though he did submit a handwritten statement 12 attesting that he has no income or assets. As a result, this matter has not been properly 13 commenced.1 14 Gilbert also has not presented his claims to the highest Nevada state court. According to 15 Gilbert, a pretrial detainee, the state district court has ordered him involuntarily committed for 16 mental-health treatment and forcibly medicated.2 He characterizes his commitment as 17 “kidnapping . . . for purpose of commercially exploiting his intellectover federal communication 18 commission regulated air waves and other commercial venues.”3 19 Afederal court will not grant a state prisoner’s petition for habeas relief until the prisoner 20 has exhausted his available state remedies for all claims raised.4 A petitioner must give the state 21 courts a fair opportunity to act on each of his claims before he presents those claims in a federal 22 23 24 1

(a)(2) and Local Rule LSR1-2. 25 2 ECF No. 1-1; ECF No. 3. 26 27 3 ECF No. 1-1. 4 Rose v. Lundy,

(1982);

(b). habeas petition.° 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.°® ‘ Here, Gilbert states that the commitment and involuntary medication order is dated ° March 20, 2020.’ The court takes judicial notice of the fact that Gilbert did not first exhaust his 6 state-court remedies. Accordingly, this federal petition must be dismissed without prejudice, and ’ Gilbert’s pending motions are denied as moot. Order ° IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to DETACH AND FILE THE PETITION (ECF No. 1-1). " IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. "2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis and motion to make file correction [ECF Nos. 1, 4] are DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. Dated: April 14, 2020 ~ 19 US. District LA a A. Dorsey 20 21 22 23 24 5 O'Sullivan v. Boerckel,

(1999); see also Duncan v. Henry,

, 365 2% (1995). 7 ® See Casey v. Moore,

(9th Cir. 2004); Garrison v. McCarthey,

(9th Cir. 1981). 8] ECF No. 3 at 4.