744 Fed.Appx. 484 (9th Cir. 2018), 17-15265, Anderson v. Williams
|Docket Nº:||17-15265, 17-70203|
|Citation:||744 Fed.Appx. 484|
|Party Name:||Anthony K. ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian WILLIAMS, Warden and Attorney General for the State of Nevada, Respondents-Appellees. Anthony K. Anderson, Petitioner, v. Jo Gentry, Warden, Respondent.|
|Attorney:||Jason F. Carr, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defenders Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner - Appellant Amanda C. Sage, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Lawrence VanDyke, Solicitor, AGNV - Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Respon...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||December 03, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Argued and Submitted October 19, 2018 San Francisco, California
Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding, Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02215-APG-PAL
Jason F. Carr, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defenders Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner - Appellant
Amanda C. Sage, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Lawrence VanDyke, Solicitor, AGNV - Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Respondents - Appellees
Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The district court dismissed Nevada state prisoner Anthony Andersons petition for a writ of habeas corpus as successive. Anderson appealed that dismissal and filed an original application for leave to file a successive claim. We consolidated the proceedings and have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and 28 U.S.C. § 2244. We
affirm the district court in the appeal; we deny the application.
We consider the appeal first. Andersons opening brief raised two issues: (1) whether the district court erred by dismissing his third habeas petition as "second or successive" under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996; and (2) whether we affirmatively misled Anderson into believing that his third petition would be considered on the merits. But in his reply brief and at oral argument, Anderson pursued a new theory of relief: that his first petition was not a petition for a writ of habeas corpus at all. Anderson asserts that...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP