Ruchell Cinque Magee v. K. Clark, No. 2:2009cv05784 - Document 7 (C.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ON A STATE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION by Judge Audrey B. Collins; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered SUMMARILY DISMISSING the petition for writ of habeas corpus of vexatious litigant Ruchell Magee, aka Ruchell Cinque Magee, which was filed without the prior written approval of a District Judge or Magistrate Judge of this district court, as required under the Order dated March 3, 1999. See order for further details. (jy)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 RUCHELL MAGEE, aka RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE, 12 Petitioner, 13 vs. 14 K. CLARK, WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 ) Case No. CV 09-5784-ABC(RC) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER ON A ) STATE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION ) ) ) ) ) ) 17 18 This Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, takes 19 judicial notice that on March 3, 1999, in Magee v. Ayers, case no. 20 CV99-0205-ABC(RC), District Judge Audrey B. Collins ordered that 21 petitioner Ruchell Magee, aka Ruchell Cinque Magee, be declared a 22 vexatious litigant under then-Local Rule 27A, and directed the Clerk 23 of Court to not accept for filing any habeas corpus petition without 24 payment of a filing fee and the prior written authorization from a 25 District Judge or Magistrate Judge issued upon a showing of evidence 26 supporting a claim, because petitioner had, between 1969 and 1999, 27 filed thirty-five federal habeas corpus petitions challenging his 1965 28 conviction and sentence for kidnapping and robbery in Los Angeles 1 County Superior Court case no. 272227. Since being declared a 2 vexatious litigant in this district court, petitioner has filed at 3 least three habeas corpus petitions in other district courts 4 challenging his 1965 conviction and sentence in Los Angeles County 5 Superior Court case no. 272227, in a blatant attempt to avoid the 6 Order of this Court declaring him a vexatious litigant and requiring 7 approval of any habeas filing by petitioner. 8 July 30, 2009, petitioner filed in the United States District Court 9 for the Eastern District of California his thirty-ninth habeas corpus 10 petition challenging his 1965 conviction and sentence in Los Angeles 11 County Superior Court case no. 272227, and that action was transferred 12 to this district court on August 7, 2009. 13 petitioner has been abusing the writ with his numerous habeas corpus 14 filings in this and other district courts. Most recently, on In short, for 40 years now 15 16 This Court finds that the instant petition, was filed without the 17 approval of a District Judge or Magistrate Judge of this district 18 court contrary to this Court s Order of March 3, 1999, and it is yet 19 another abusive and successive petition challenging petitioner s 1965 20 conviction and sentence in Los Angeles County Superior Court case no. 21 272227, which petitioner has not received permission from the Ninth 22 Circuit Court of Appeals to file. 23 (holding before second or successive application is filed in district 24 court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals 25 for an order authorizing the district court to consider the 26 application ). 27 28 See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States Courts provides that [i]f it plainly appears from the petition 2 1 and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to 2 relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and 3 direct the clerk to notify petitioner. 4 Magistrate Judge approved the filing of petitioner s pending habeas 5 corpus petition, as required by the Order of March 3, 1999, and the 6 petition is abusive and successive; thus, the petition should be 7 summarily dismissed under Rule 4 and Local Rule 72-3.2. 8 Here, no District Judge or ORDER 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered SUMMARILY 10 DISMISSING the petition for writ of habeas corpus of vexatious 11 litigant Ruchell Magee, aka Ruchell Cinque Magee, which was filed 12 without the prior written approval of a District Judge or Magistrate 13 Judge of this district court, as required under the Order dated 14 March 3, 1999. 15 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily 17 dismissing the habeas corpus petition as a successive and abusive 18 petition, which this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to 19 consider. 20 The Clerk shall notify petitioner of the Judgment. 21 22 23 DATE: August 11, 2009 AUDREY B. COLLINS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 PRESENTED BY: DATE: August 11, 2009 /S/ ROSALYN M. CHAPMAN ROSALYN M. CHAPMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE R&R-MDO\09-5784.MDO - 8/11/09 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.