1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 MATTHEW TRAVIS HOUSTON, Case No.: 2:22-cv-01745-APG-DJA 4 Petitioner, Order 5 v. 6

CALVIN JOHNSON, et al., 7

8 Respondents.

9 10 This is a habeas corpus action brought by Matthew Travis Houston, an individual 11 incarcerated at Nevada’s High Desert State Prison. Houston initiated this action in the United 12 States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, and it was transferred to this Court on 13 October 18, 2022. See ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3. I summarily dismiss this action because Houston has not 14 paid the filing fee and has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, because his 15 petition is not on a proper form, and because his petition is plainly frivolous at any rate. 16 Houston has not paid the filing fee and has not filed an application to proceed in forma 17 pauperis, and his petition is not on a form required for habeas petitions in this Court. See LSR 18 3-1. Beyond that though, I find that Houston’s petition is patently meritless. The court may grant 19 a writ of habeas corpus to a person in state custody only if the person is “in custody in violation 20 of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

(3); 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2254(a). A state prisoner’s claim is cognizable in a habeas action only if it falls within the 22 “core” of habeas. Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). If success on 23 a claim would not necessarily lead to a petitioner's immediate or earlier release from custody, the 24 claim does not fall within “the core of habeas corpus” and must be brought, “if at all,” in a civil 25 rights action under section 1983. Nettles,

. Furthermore, a federal court generally 26 cannot grant a state prisoner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus unless the petitioner has 27 exhausted available state-court remedies.

(b); see also Rose v. Lundy,

|| any potentially meritorious claim for habeas corpus relief. Houston’s petition is nearly 2 || inscrutable, and it includes statements that are plainly frivolous, fanciful, and delusional. There is 3 || no indication that Houston can possibly plead any claim upon which habeas corpus relief could 4 || be granted. I will dismiss this action. 5 If Houston wishes to attempt again to initiate a habeas petition—the Court’s records 6 || reflect that he has attempted unsuccessfully on numerous occasions in the past—he must draft a 7 || petition using a correct form, he must either pay the $5 filing fee or apply to proceed in forma 8 || pauperis, and he must fill out the form petition completely and in an understandable manner. 9 || I will direct the Clerk to send Houston the proper forms. If Houston wishes to attempt again to 10 || initiate a habeas action, he should not put the case number for this case, or any other previously 11 dismissed case, on his forms; he must initiate a new action. 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 13 || A certificate of appealability is DENIED because jurists of reason would not find debatable 14 || whether the Court is correct in dismissing this action. The Clerk of the Court is directed to 15 || ENTER JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to: 17 ° ADD Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, to the docket for 18 this case, as counsel for the Respondents; 19 ° SERVE the Respondents with a copy of the habeas petition (ECF No. 1) anda 20 copy of this order. Respondents need take no action with respect to this case; and 21 ° SEND Petitioner the forms for a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 22 28 ULS.C. § 2254, for a petition for writ of habeas corpus under

, 23 for a civil rights action under

, and for an application to proceed 24 in forma pauperis. 25 Dated: October 25, 2022 26 ( Za .

US. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon 28