1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Clifford Stubbs, Case No.: 2:25-cv-01434-CDS-MDC

5 Petitioner Order Vacating Prior Dismissal Order

6 v.

7 State of Nevada, [ECF Nos. 5, 6]

8 Respondents 9 10 Petitioner Clifford Stubbs, a pro se Nevada prisoner, initiated this case by submitting a 11 petition for writ of habeas corpus under

. Pet., ECF No. 1-1. I denied Stubbs’s 12 application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and instructed him to pay the $5 filing fee no later 13 than October 17, 2025. ECF No. 3. Stubbs paid the filing fee on December 2, 2025. ECF No. 4. 14 However, I inadvertently dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to comply with the 15 court’s order instructing him to pay the filing fee. ECF No. 5. Accordingly, I vacate my order 16 dismissing his petition without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s order and screen 17 his petition. I, however, nonetheless conclude that the petition is subject to substantial defects 18 and summarily dismiss his petition without prejudice. 19 I. Discussion 20 Pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge must examine the habeas petition and 21 order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. 22 Montgomery,

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

(9th Cir. 1998). 25 26 1 Stubbs fails to allege a cognizable federal habeas claim. The Antiterrorism and Effective 2 Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) “places limitations on a federal court’s power to grant a state 3 prisoner’s federal habeas petition.” Hurles v. Ryan,

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Cullen v. 4 Pinholster,

, 181 (2011)). A state prisoner is entitled to federal habeas relief only if he is 5 being held in custody in violation of the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28

(a). “Thus, a habeas corpus petition must allege a deprivation of one or more 7 federal rights to present a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim.” Burkey v. Deeds,

(D. Nev. 1993). 9 Although Stubbs mentions “due process” in his petition, his petition is nearly 10 inscrutable. A petitioner “may not transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely by 11 asserting a violation of due process.” Langford v. Day,

(9th Cir. 1997). As best I 12 can tell, it does not set forth any potentially meritorious claim that his custody violates federal 13 law. 14 In addition, Stubbs was denied federal habeas corpus relief in 2005. See Stubbs v. Budge, 15 Case No. 3:03-cv-00022-LRH-RAM. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 16 (“AEDPA”) generally limits habeas petitioners to one round of federal habeas review. 28 U.S.C. 17 § 2244. Stubbs has already received federal habeas review of his conviction. To receive further 18 collateral review, he must secure permission from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive 19 § 2254 habeas petition.1 See Brown v. Muniz,

(9th Cir. 2018) (under § 2244(b)(3), 20 federal district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain a petitioner’s successive habeas petition 21 absent permission from the Court of Appeals to do so). Accordingly, I deny the petition and 22 dismiss this action without prejudice to its refiling should Stubbs obtain permission to do so 23 from the Ninth Circuit. 24

25 1 The All Writs Act,

, allows the Court to grant extraordinary writs where the Court has jurisdiction. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson,

, 33–34 (2002). Thus, it does not provide an 26 independent basis for jurisdiction for a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition. See id. 1) IL. Conclusion 2 I order that the court’s order [ECF No. 5] dismissing the petition without prejudice is 3|| vacated. 4 I further order that petitioner Clifford Stubbs’s petition for writ of habeas corpus [ECF No. 6] is dismissed without prejudice to its refiling should Stubbs obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit. 7 I further order that the petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability, as jurists of 8|| reason would not find dismissal of the petition for the reasons stated herein to be debatable or wrong. 10 I further order that pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Clerk of Court will direct informal electronic service upon the respondents, and provide to the 12||respondents an electronic copy of all items previously filed in this case by regenerating the Notice of Electronic Filing to the office of the Attorney General only. 14 The judgment in favor of the State of Nevada against Clifford Stubbs [ECF No. 7] 15|| stands. / ) 16 Dated: December 9, 2025 LZ ‘

Cristina D. Silva 18 United States District Judge 19 [ □

20 21 22 23 24 25 26