1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * * 9 BOBBY LEE FAIR, JR., Case No. 3:20-cv-00490-LRH-WGC

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v. 12 LAKES CROSSING CENTER 13 ADMINISTRATOR, et al.,

14 Respondents.

15 16 Petitioner has submitted what he has styled as a pro se petition for writ of habeas 17 corpus (ECF No. 1-1). It is handwritten on blank paper and does not substantially follow 18 this court’s required form. LSR 3-1. Moreover, petitioner has failed to submit an 19 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. Accordingly, this matter 20 has not been properly commenced.

(a)(2) and Local Rule LSR 1-2. 21 Thus, the present action will be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new 22 petition in a new action with either the $5.00 filing fee or a completed application to 23 proceed in forma pauperis on the proper form with both an inmate account statement for 24 the past six months and a properly executed financial certificate. 25 The court also notes that it does not appear that Fair has exhausted his claims. A 26 federal court will not grant a state prisoner’s petition for habeas relief until the prisoner 27 has exhausted available state remedies for all claims raised. Rose v. Lundy,

|| Opportunity to act on each of the claims before she or he presents those claims in a 2 || federal habeas petition. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel,

(1999); see □□□□ 3 || Duncan v. Henry,

(1995). A claim remains unexhausted until the 4 || petitioner has given the highest available state court the opportunity to consider the 5 || claim through direct appeal or state collateral review proceedings. See Casey v. Moore, 6 ||

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

(9th Cir. 7 |} 1981). 8 Here, Fair appears to complain about his currently being held involuntarily at 9 || Lakes Crossing, a psychiatric facility. Fair avers that he has been at Lakes Crossing 10 || since about May 2020. The court takes judicial notice that Fair cannot have exhausted 11 || his state remedies in such a short time period. The court also notes that Fair states that 12 || he has counsel in his state-court proceedings. 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk detach and file the petition (ECF 14 |} No. 1-1). 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to 16 || the filing of a new petition in a new action with a properly completed application form to 17 || proceed in forma pauperis. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED, as 19 || jurists of reason would not find the court’s dismissal of this improperly commenced 20 || action without prejudice to be debatable or incorrect. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly 22 || and close this case. 23 24 DATED this 24th day of September, 2020. 25 26 LAR HICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28