Nash v. Gentry, 2:16-cv-00901-JCM-NJK. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190912c06
Visitors: 19
Filed: Sep. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . On October 12, 2016, this court entered an order and judgment dismissing this habeas corpus case with prejudice as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d). ECF Nos. 9/10. Petitioner Nash did not file an appeal. On November 12, 2018, Nash filed a motion for immediate discharge based upon an alleged failure to treat her medical condition(s). ECF No. 17. Nash fails to identify circumstances that would warrant reconsideration of the order and judgment dism
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . On October 12, 2016, this court entered an order and judgment dismissing this habeas corpus case with prejudice as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d). ECF Nos. 9/10. Petitioner Nash did not file an appeal. On November 12, 2018, Nash filed a motion for immediate discharge based upon an alleged failure to treat her medical condition(s). ECF No. 17. Nash fails to identify circumstances that would warrant reconsideration of the order and judgment dismi..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
On October 12, 2016, this court entered an order and judgment dismissing this habeas corpus case with prejudice as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). ECF Nos. 9/10. Petitioner Nash did not file an appeal.
On November 12, 2018, Nash filed a motion for immediate discharge based upon an alleged failure to treat her medical condition(s). ECF No. 17. Nash fails to identify circumstances that would warrant reconsideration of the order and judgment dismissing this case. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 59(e), 60(b). In addition, her motion asks the court to address the conditions of her confinement, which is relief not available in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) The proper proceeding for the relief Nash seeks would be an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's motion for immediate discharge (ECF No. 17) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied.
Source: Leagle
