1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 DARREN MAURICE KING, Case No. 3:20-cv-00449-MMD-CLB

7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 Petitioner Darren King, a Nevada state inmate, has filed a pro se petition for writ 12 of habeas corpus under

(ECF No. 1-1 (“Petition”)), an application to 13 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 (“IFP”)), a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF 14 No. 1-2), and a motion to demonstrate cause (ECF No. 1-3). This matter is before the 15 Court for initial review under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. For the reasons 16 discussed below, the Court dismisses the Petition for lack of jurisdiction, denies the IFP 17 application and motions, and directs the Clerk of Court to close this case. 18 Petitioner challenges a 1999 judgment of conviction entered in the Eighth Judicial 19 District Court, Case No. 96C134803, pursuant to which Petitioner is still in custody.1 20 Petitioner’s motion to demonstrate cause acknowledges that Petitioner previously 21 challenged this same judgment of conviction in this Court. (ECF No. 1-3 at 2.) An order 22 and a judgment were entered in that action by this Court in September 2006 denying the 23 petition with prejudice for failure to state a federal claim. See King v. Neven, Case No. 24 2:06-cv-00798-PMP-LRL, ECF Nos. 11, 12 (D. Nev. Sept. 2006). Petitioner appealed, 25

26 1The Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the Eighth Judicial District Court and Nevada appellate courts, which may be accessed by the public online 27 at: https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/default.aspx and http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do. According to state court 28 1 and both this Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to issue a certificate 2 of appealability. See

at ECF Nos. 18, 28. 3 The Petition in this action is second or successive because a prior federal petition 4 was decided on its merits. See

The Petition challenges the same judgment of 5 conviction, and the claim Petitioner raises are based on facts that occurred before the 6 prior petition. See Brown v. Muniz,

(9th Cir. 2018) (“[A] federal habeas 7 petition is second or successive if the facts underlying the claim occurred by the time of 8 the initial petition, . . . and if the petition challenges the same state court judgment as the 9 initial petition.”). Under

, before a second or successive petition is filed 10 in the federal district court, a petitioner must move in the court of appeals for an order 11 authorizing the district court to consider the petition. See

(b)(3). A federal 12 district court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a successive petition absent such 13 permission. See Brown,

. Petitioner makes no allegation or showing that 14 he has received authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file this Petition, nor do the Ninth 15 Circuit’s records reflect that Petitioner has sought to obtain any such authorization. The 16 Petition must therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.2 17 It is therefore ordered that the Petition (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without prejudice 18 for lack of jurisdiction. 19 It is further ordered that Petitioner’s IFP application (ECF No. 1), motion for 20 appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-2), and motion to demonstrate cause (ECF No. 1-3) 21 are denied as moot. 22 Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability, as jurists of reason would not find 23 the dismissal of the Petition on jurisdictional grounds to be debatable or wrong. 24

25 2The Court notes that the Petition is also untimely under

(d)(1), which provides a one-year statute of limitations for a state inmate to file a federal habeas 26 petition. Petitioner’s conviction became final on September 7, 2000, after the Nevada 27 Supreme Court denied petitions for rehearing and the time expired for filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Accordingly, absent a basis for 28 tolling or delayed accrual, the limitations period expired 365 days later on September 8, 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to add Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford as 2 || counsel for Respondents. No response is required from Respondents other than to 3 || respond to any orders of a reviewing court. 4 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Clerk of Court is 5 || further directed to file the Petition (ECF No. 1-1) and informally serve the Nevada Attorney 6 || General with the Petition and this order by sending a notice of electronic filing to the 7 || Nevada Attorney General's office. 8 The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter final judgment accordingly, 9 || dismissing this action without prejudice, and close this case. 10 DATED THIS 28" Day of December 2020. 11 12 13 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28