2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MATTHEW DOUGLAS, Case No. 3:25-cv-00339-MMD-CLB

7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8 JEREMY BEAN, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 This habeas matter is before the Court for initial review of Petitioner Matthew 13 Douglas’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1-1 (“Petition”)) under 28

pursuant to the rules governing § 2254 cases.1 Also before the Court is 15 Douglas’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP application” (ECF No. 1)) and 16 motion to extend copy work (ECF No. 5) (“Motion)). The Court concludes that the Petition 17 is subject to multiple substantial defects, summarily dismisses the Petition without 18 prejudice, grants the IFP application, and denies his Motion as moot. 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 Under Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge may examine the habeas petition and 21 order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See 22 Valdez v. Montgomery,

(9th Cir. 2019). The rule allows courts to screen 23 and dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, 24 false, or plagued by procedural defects. See Boyd v. Thompson,

, 1128 25 (9th Cir. 1998). 26

27 1All references to a “Habeas Rule” or the “Habeas Rules” in this order identify the rules governing § 2254 cases in the United States District Courts. Petitioner filed the 28 petition under

; however, the Court will apply the Rules in this action as authorized by Habeas Rule 1(b). 2 Douglas challenges a 2019 state court judgment of conviction pursuant to a guilty 3 plea. He initiated this federal habeas action on July 9, 2025.2 (ECF No. 1-1.) He asserts 4 one ground for relief. Douglas claims his constitutional right to due process of law has 5 been violated by the treatment of four leap year days in calculating his sentence. (Id. at 6 7.) He attaches an order by the state district court denying his state habeas petition, an 7 order by the state district court denying his motion to modify and/or correct illegal 8 sentence, as well as an order of affirmance by the Nevada Court of Appeals finding that 9 Douglas failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies. In the order of affirmance, 10 the Nevada Court of Appeals summarizes Douglas’s claims as seeking the application of 11 statutory credits to his sentence. (ECF No. 1-1 at 32.) 12 Although Douglas attaches an order of affirmance by the state appellate court, the 13 state appellate court found that Douglas failed to exhaust all available administrative 14 remedies. In addition, it appears that Douglas alleged different claims before the state 15 appellate court than the claim he alleges in his Petition. Given that his claim is 16 unexhausted in state court, the Petition fails to state a claim upon which habeas corpus 17 relief could be granted. This action will be dismissed without prejudice. 18 B. Cognizability 19 Douglas fails to allege a cognizable federal habeas claim. The Antiterrorism and 20 Effective Death Penalty Act “places limitations on a federal court’s power to grant a state 21 prisoner’s federal habeas petition.” Hurles v. Ryan,

(9th Cir. 2014) 22 (citing Cullen v. Pinholster,

, 181 (2011)). A state prisoner is entitled to 23 federal habeas relief only if he is being held in custody in violation of the constitution, 24 laws, or treaties of the United States.

(a). “Thus, a habeas corpus 25 petition must allege a deprivation of one or more federal rights to present a cognizable 26

27 2In March 2025, Douglas filed a federal habeas corpus petition that was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust his claims in state court. See Douglas v. Bean, 28 Case No. 2:25-cv-00567-MMD-MDC, ECF No. 3. 2 Federal habeas relief is unavailable “for errors of state law.” Lewis v. Jeffers, 497

, 780 (1990). A state’s interpretation of its own laws or rules provides no basis 4 for federal habeas relief because no federal question arises. Estelle v. McGuire,

(1991) (federal courts may not reexamine state court decisions on state law 6 issues). A petitioner “may not transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely by 7 asserting a violation of due process.” Langford v. Day,

(9th Cir. 8 1996). 9 Although Douglas mentions “due process” in his Petition, his claims present no 10 federal question because they plainly involve the application or interpretation of state 11 sentencing law. See Swarthout v.Cooke,

, 220-22 (2011) (noting that the 12 Supreme Court has “long recognized that a mere error of state law is not a denial of due 13 process”). Douglas’s claims concern a question of state law and therefore are not 14 cognizable in federal habeas corpus proceedings. 15 III. CONCLUSION 16 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner Matthew Douglas’s petition for writ of habeas 17 corpus (ECF No. 1-1) under

is denied and this action is dismissed 18 without prejudice. 19 It is further ordered that Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 20 No. 1) is granted. 21 It is further ordered that Petitioner’s motion to extend copy work (ECF No. 5) is 22 denied as moot. 23 It is further ordered that Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability, as jurists 24 of reason would not find the Court’s dismissal of the petition to be debatable or wrong. 25 The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter final judgment accordingly and close this 26 case. 27 The Clerk of the Court is further directed to make informal electronic service upon 28 Respondents by adding Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford as counsel for the 1 || respondents and to provide Respondents an electronic copy of all items previously filed 2 || in this case by regenerating the Notice of Electronic Filing to the Office of the Attorney 3 || General. No response is required from Respondents other than to respond to any orders 4 || of a reviewing court. 5 DATED THIS 11" Day of August 2025.

7 MIRANDA M. DU 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28