GEORGE STEVEN HUDSON v. NEVADA STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE BOTH ELY AND CARSON CITY AND ATTORNEY DERRICK PENNEY ESQ (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

George Steven Hudson appeals from a district court order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on September 30, 2024.¹ Seventh Judicial District Court, White Pine County; Steve L. Dobrescu, Chief Judge.

In his petition, Hudson claimed the public defender's office had a conflict of interest because he filed civil lawsuits and a bar complaint against the office, counsel ignored his requests for a bail reduction hearing, and counsel refused to collect unspecified evidence. As a result of the foregoing, Hudson requested that the public defender's office be removed from his criminal case and that he be appointed conflict counsel.

The district court determined Hudson did not raise a cognizable claim for relief because he did not challenge a conviction or sentence or challenge his custodial status but rather sought the removal of the public defender from his pending criminal case. Hudson does not challenge the district court's determination that his claims concerned a pending criminal case, and we conclude the district court did not err by dismissing Hudson's petition for failing to raise a cognizable claim for relief. See NRS 34.360 (“Every person unlawfully committed, detained, confined or restrained of his or her liberty ․ may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint.”); see also NRS 34.724(1) (stating a person convicted of a crime and under a sentence of death or imprisonment may file a postconviction habeas petition seeking relief from the judgment of conviction or sentence or challenging the computation of time served pursuant to the judgment of conviction). Accordingly,² we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Hudson filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. As the filing fee has already been waived, we take no action on the motion.

2.   In his notices of appeal and informal brief, Hudson appears to argue he is entitled to relief for the reasons expressed in various pleadings filed in different district court cases. To the extent Hudson raises additional argument in his pro se notices of appeal, such claims were improperly raised, and we do not consider them. See NRAP 3(c) (providing the contents of a notice of appeal); see also NRAP 28(k) (stating an appellant “proceeding without assistance of counsel may file the form brief provided by the clerk of the Supreme Court in lieu of the brief described in Rule 28(a)”). Moreover, Hudson may not incorporate by reference arguments raised in pleadings before the district court in his informal brief. See NRAP 28(e)(2). Therefore, we decline to consider any such claims.Insofar as Hudson raises other arguments not specifically addressed in this order, we have considered the same and conclude that they either need not be reached or do not present a basis for relief.