1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Paxton P. Shanklin, Case No.: 2:25-cv-01317-JAD-NJK

4 Petitioner

5 v. Order Dismissing Action, Denying Motions, and Closing Case 6 James Kelly, et al.,

7 Respondents

8

9 This pro se action was initiated on July 21, 2025, by Paxton P. Shanklin, an individual 10 incarcerated at Nevada’s Southern Desert Correctional Center. Shanklin filed a petition for writ 11 of habeas corpus,1 a motion for appointment of counsel,2 a motion for evidentiary hearing,3 a 12 document entitled “The Final Call,”4 and exhibits.5 Because this successive petition is 13 unauthorized—and frivolous to boot—I summarily dismiss it. 14 Shanklin is serving an aggregate sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole 15 on multiple felony convictions including battery with intent to commit a crime, robbery, 16 kidnapping, and sexual assault, all sustained in a Nevada state court on April 21, 1983. Shanklin 17 has initiated previous habeas actions in this court challenging those convictions, notably Case 18 19

20 1 ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3. 21 2 ECF No. 1-4. 3 ECF No. 1-5. 22 4 ECF No. 1-6 23 5 ECF Nos. 1-7, 1-8. Shanklin has not paid the filing fee for this action, and he has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 1 No. CV-N-90-336-HDM and Case No. 05-cv-00607-ECR-RAM. 6 Habeas relief was denied in 2 Case No. CV-N-90-336-HDM, with the majority of Shanklin’s claims denied on procedural 3 default grounds and two claims denied on their merits.7 On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of 4 Appeals denied Shanklin what was then called a certificate of probable cause.8 Over a decade

5 later in 2007, Case No. 05-cv-00607-ECR-RAM was dismissed because it was a successive 6 petition and Shanklin had not obtained permission from the Court of Appeals to file such a 7 successive petition.9 8 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 9 provides: 10 If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and 11 direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.

12 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 state that “it is the duty of the court to screen out 13 frivolous applications and eliminate the burden that would be placed on the respondent by 14 ordering an unnecessary answer,” particularly if the petition does not state facts “that point to a 15 real possibility of constitutional error.”10 Summary dismissal under Rule 4 is appropriate if the 16 allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory or palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or 17 false.11 18

19 6 The court takes judicial notice of the record in Case No. 05-cv-00607-ECR-RAM. 7 See ECF No. 4 in Case No. 05-cv-00607-ECR-RAM. 20 8 See id. 21 9 ECF Nos. 4, 10 and 11 in Case No. 05-cv-00607-ECR-RAM. 10 Habeas Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes (1976 Adoption); see also Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695

, 1198 (9th Cir. 1983) (Rule 4 “explicitly allows a district court to dismiss summarily the petition on the merits when no claim for relief is stated.”). 23 11 Hendricks v. Vasquez,

(9th Cir. 1990). ] Shanklin’s petition,” like the one he filed some twenty years ago, is successive, and Shanklin does not state that he has obtained permission from the Court of Appeals to file such a successive petition.!> Regardless, the allegations in Shanklin’s petition are patently frivolous. 4|| Habeas corpus relief could not possibly be granted on this petition, so I summarily dismiss it 5] under Rule 4. 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. Petitioner is 7| DENIED a certificate of appealability because jurists of reason would not find it debatable 8]| whether this ruling is correct. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED as moot. 10 The Clerk of Court is directed to 11 e ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE; and 12 e TRANSMIT a copy of this order to the Attorney General of the State of Nevada. 13 □□□ U.S. District Rudge Jennifer A. Dorsey 15 July 28, 2025 16 17 18 19 20 21 Shanklin’s petition is on the correct form, but he omitted introductory parts of the form petition, which would have disclosed the successive nature of the petition, and which would have 3 aided the Court in screening the petition. See ECF No. 1-1 at 2-3. 13 See

(b)(3)(A).