Gutierrez Ramirez v. Kathering Lipel
Filing
12
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE by Judge Gary A. Feess. (See document for details). Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (ib)
<![CDATA[
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
NOE GABRIEL GUTIERREZ RAMIREZ, )
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
KATHERINE LIPEL,
)
)
Respondent.
)
CASE NO. ED CV 12-00696 GAF (RZ)
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
ACTION
16
17
The Eastern District of California transferred this case to this District on
18
May 4, 2012. As that court noted, Petitioner includes two different pleadings. The first
19
is a putative habeas corpus petition. Buried more deeply in the transferred materials is a
20
form civil rights complaint invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Despite the two pleadings,
21
Petitioner really presents only one dispute, namely a malpractice and fraud suit against his
22
civil lawyer in a car-accident case. The action has no business in federal court, either as
23
a habeas action, a § 1983 action or otherwise. The Court will dismiss the action
24
summarily, albeit without prejudice to Petitioner’s pursuit of relief through a civil action
25
in state court or other remedies.
26
Petitioner Noe Gabriel Gutierrez Ramirez is a state inmate. He is dissatisfied
27
with the lawyer who represented him in a civil action in the wake of an auto collision in
28
2008. He explains that counsel Katherine (incorrectly spelled “Kathering” in the petition)
1
Lipel settled his suit for $7,500 without his consent and that she even forged his signature
2
in doing so. But Petitioner does not pray for a reversal of any conviction or seek an
3
accelerated release from confinement.
4
The principal purpose of a habeas corpus writ is to provide a remedy for
5
prisoners challenging the fact or duration of their confinement and who, thus, are seeking
6
either immediate release or a sooner-than-currently-scheduled release. See Preiser v.
7
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (holding that habeas
8
petition, not civil rights action, was proper vehicle for seeking restoration of good-time
9
credits). Here, if Petitioner’s claims were to succeed, he would not thereby be entitled to
10
11
12
13
14
15
an accelerated release from confinement.
Nor is § 1983 a proper form of relief. Petitioner simply alleges no violation
of his federal legal rights.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the action without prejudice
to Petitioner’s pursuit of relief in state court or with state bar authorities.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
DATED: May 15, 2012
18
19
20
21
GARY A. FEESS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
