Price v. Bean

United States District Court, District of Nevada · July 3, 2025 · No. 2:24-cv-00789

Summary

This United States District Court order grants the respondents' motion to dismiss and motion to strike in a federal habeas corpus proceeding brought by prisoner Edmond Paul Price. The court dismisses the petition as untimely under the AEDPA one-year statute of limitations, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence or extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling despite allegations of prison mail interference. The order also addresses alternative grounds for dismissal, concluding that certain claims are unexhausted, not cognizable, insufficiently pleaded, or moot, and ultimately denies a certificate of appealability.

Court
United States District Court, District of Nevada
Writing for the Court
Cristind D Silva
Jurisdiction
United States District Court, District of Nevada
Decision date
July 3, 2025
Docket number
2:24-cv-00789
Procedural posture
Respondents moved to dismiss the petition as untimely and to strike the petitioner's motion to file a surreply; both motions were granted.
Precedential value
unpublished
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

federal habeas corpuspost-conviction reliefprisoners rightscivil procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedurepost-conviction reliefcivil rights

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the federal habeas petition is timely under AEDPA.
  2. Whether equitable tolling applies to the petition's filing deadline.
  3. Whether the petition's claims are exhausted.
  4. Whether the petition's claims are cognizable as federal habeas claims.
  5. Whether Ground 5 satisfies the pleading standard for a habeas petition.
  6. Whether the motion to strike the petitioner's surreply request should be granted.

Holdings

  1. The petition is untimely and is dismissed with prejudice.
  2. Equitable tolling is unavailable because Price did not show extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely filing.
  3. Grounds 1, 2, 3, 6 are exhausted; Ground 8 is not cognizable; other grounds are dismissed for other reasons.
  4. Grounds 1, 2, 3, 6 are cognizable; Ground 8 is not cognizable because it raises only a state‑law issue.
  5. Ground 5 fails to state a claim because it lacks specific factual support.
  6. The motion to strike is granted; the surreply is stricken.

Key quotations

Because Price has not demonstrated that his untimeliness in filing his federal petition was caused by an external impediment that could not be overcome with reasonable diligence, his petition will be dismissed as untimely.

Factual background

Edmond Paul Price was convicted in 2013 of multiple offenses including kidnapping and robbery. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed most convictions but reversed the burglary count. After state post‑conviction proceedings, Price filed a federal habeas petition in 2024 alleging untimeliness, lack of exhaustion, and other constitutional claims.

Procedural history

Petitioner was convicted in Nevada state court in 2013, underwent state appellate proceedings, and filed state post‑conviction petitions that were denied. He filed a federal habeas petition on 24 April 2024, which the district court dismissed as untimely on 3 July 2025.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…