Miller v. State of Nevada
3:19-cv-00673
| D. Nev. | Nov 21, 2019Background
- Petitioner Clifford Wayne Miller, a pro se Nevada state prisoner, challenges a 2006 conviction for two counts of first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon and two consecutive life sentences without parole.
- Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal (Feb. 2009); a post-conviction petition was denied and that denial was affirmed by the Nevada Supreme Court (Oct. 2019).
- Miller filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on November 7, 2019.
- The district court found multiple pleading defects: the handwritten petition is often illegible and disorganized, the State of Nevada was incorrectly named as respondent, and several claims appear unexhausted or duplicative (notably Grounds 3, 17–20, 23–25, and 26).
- The court ordered Miller to file a typed or legible amended petition and a written response showing cause within 30 days why the identified grounds should not be dismissed as unexhausted; warned Miller remains responsible for AEDPA deadline calculations; and provided form § 2254 petitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legibility / organization of petition | Miller filed pro se handwritten petition containing his claims | Court/Respondents: petition is often illegible, cramped, and confusing; duplicates make screening impossible | Court ordered Miller to file a legible, well-organized amended petition within 30 days |
| Improper respondent named | Miller named the State of Nevada as respondent | Rule 2(a): federal habeas must name the state officer with custody (typically the warden); misnaming defeats personal jurisdiction | Court directed Miller to name the proper respondent in the amended petition |
| Exhaustion of state remedies for specified claims | Miller asserts certain claims were raised on direct appeal or PCR (statements inconsistent) | Record and Nevada Supreme Court decisions indicate several claims were not presented through one full round of state review and are likely unexhausted | Court ordered Miller to show cause why Grounds 3, 17–20, 23–25, and 26 should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust; required amended petition clarifying exhaustion status |
| Ineffective-assistance (IAC) claims raised on direct appeal / duplicative claims | Miller lists numerous IAC grounds, some alleged as raised on direct appeal or in PCR; some appear duplicative or mixed between proceedings | Nevada law and the state decisions treat IAC as typically raised in post-conviction proceedings; the petition mixes or misstates where claims were raised | Court noted apparent misstatements and duplications, directed reorganization and re-allegation of all claims in the amended petition and warned unalleged claims will be waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687 (9th Cir. 2019) (district court must screen habeas petitions under Rule 4 and order a response unless relief plainly not warranted)
- Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990) (courts may dismiss patently frivolous, vague, or incredible habeas claims at screening)
- Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 1998) (claims may be dismissed at screening for procedural defects)
- Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350 (9th Cir. 2004) (failure to name proper custodial respondent strips district court of personal jurisdiction)
- Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 1996) (same principle regarding proper respondent and jurisdiction)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (exhaustion requirement and procedural default principles)
- Woods v. Sinclair, 764 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2014) (a claim must be fairly presented to state courts to satisfy exhaustion)
- O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (must present claims through one complete round of state-court review)
- Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (elaborating the complete-round exhaustion rule)
- Shumway v. Payne, 223 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2000) (state courts must be presented with the specific federal constitutional guarantee relied upon)
- Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2005) (fair presentation requires operative facts and the federal legal theory)
- Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2015) (an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading)
- King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1987) (claims not re-pled in an amended complaint are waived)
- Alotaibi v. State, 404 P.3d 761 (Nev. 2017) (Nevada law: IAC claims generally should be raised in post-conviction proceedings)
- Jeffries v. State, 397 P.3d 21 (Nev. 2017) (declining to address IAC raised for first time on direct appeal)