Obeya v. State of Nevada

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 CLEMENT OBEYA, Case No. 2:25-cv-01048-GMN-MDC 6 Petitioner, v. ORDER [7] STATE OF NEVADA, et al., [8] Respondents. [9] 10 Petitioner Clement Obeya, a pro se litigant, commenced this habeas action by filing a 11 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1-1) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . This habeas matter 12 is before the Court for initial review under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases1 as well as 13 consideration of Petitioner’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ((“IFP”) ECF 14 No. 4). The Court grants the IFP Application but dismisses the Petition without prejudice as 15 unexhausted. 16 Background 17 Obeya pled guilty to one count of Burglary. See State of Nevada v. Obeya, Case No. C18 22-367536-1. The state court entered the judgment of conviction in January 2025. The state 19 appellate court recently entered its order of affirmance on September 3, 2025. Obeya filed a 20 state post-conviction habeas Petition in May 2025 that remains pending before the state district 21 court. See Obeya v. State of Nevada, Case No. A-25-918495-W. Obeya initiated this federal 22 habeas proceeding in June 2025 and asserts claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. ECF No. 23 1-1. 24 Discussion 25 Habeas Rule 4 requires federal district courts to examine a habeas petition and order a 26 response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. [27] 1 All references to a “Habeas Rule” or the “Habeas Rules” in this order identify the Rules 28 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 1 Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). This rule allows courts to screen and dismiss 2 petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or plagued by 3 procedural defects. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases); 4 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 5 Because a federal habeas petitioner incarcerated by a state must give state courts a fair 6 opportunity to act on each of his claims before he presents them in a federal habeas petition, 7 federal courts will not consider his petition for habeas relief until he has properly exhausted his 8 available state remedies for all claims raised. Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763 , 764–67 (9th 9 Cir. 2018). 10 A claim remains unexhausted until the petitioner has raised the claim through one 11 complete round of either direct appeal or collateral proceedings to the highest state court level of 12 review available. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 , 844–45 (1999); Peterson v. Lampert, [13] 319 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). To properly exhaust state remedies, a petitioner 14 must “present the state courts with the same claim he urges upon the federal court.” Picard v. 15 Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 278 (1971). A claim is not exhausted unless the petitioner has presented 16 to the state court the same operative facts and legal theory upon which his federal claim is based. 17 Woods v. Sinclair, 764 F.3d 1109, 1129 (9th Cir. 2014). The claim “must include reference to a 18 specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a statement of the facts that entitle the 19 petitioner to relief.” Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152 , 162–63 (1996)). See also Castillo v. 20 McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 2005). 21 Obeya has not properly and fully exhausted his state court remedies because he has not 22 presented the claims alleged in his federal habeas Petition through one complete round of either 23 direct appeal or collateral proceedings to the Nevada appellate court. Although he filed a direct 24 appeal, he has not exhausted his ineffective assistance of counsel claims before the Nevada 25 appellate court. Obeya may file a new federal habeas petition—in a new case case—upon 26 exhaustion of his state court remedies. Dismissal of this action as unexhausted without prejudice 27 will not materially impact the analysis of any issue in a later-filed habeas proceeding or 28 otherwise result in substantial prejudice. The Court dismisses Obeya’s Petition without 1 || prejudice as unexhausted. 2 Conclusion 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 4 1. Petitioner Clement Obeya’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1-1) is 5 DISMISSED without prejudice. 6 2. Acertificate of appealability is denied as reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 7 conclusion to be debatable or wrong. 8 3. The Clerk of the Court is kindly directed to provide informal electronic service upon 9 respondents under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases by adding 10 Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford as counsel for respondents and to provide 11 respondents an electronic copy of all items previously filed in this case by 12 regenerating the Notice of Electronic Filing to the office of the AG only. No 13 response is required from respondents other than to respond to any orders of a 14 reviewing court. 15 4. The Clerk of the Court is kindly directed to enter final judgment dismissing this 16 action and close this case. 17 DATED: September 9, 2025 [18] 19 wf NAVARRO 0 UNITED/STATES DISTRICT JUDGE