-AGR Azael Dythian Perales v. United States of America et al, No. 8:2010cv01250 - Document 3 (C.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Judge James V. Selna. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing the petition. (See Order for details.) (mp)

Download PDF
-AGR Azael Dythian Perales v. United States of America et al Doc. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES, 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14 15 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. SACV 10-1250 JVS (AGR) OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS On August 17, 2010, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed an Application for 18 19 Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Petition ). Although captioned as a petition for writ of 20 habeas corpus, it plainly appears from the face of the Petition that this Court does 21 not have habeas jurisdiction. Petitioner is not incarcerated or in custody. See 28 22 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c), 2254(a). Petitioner does not challenge a judgment, 23 conviction, or sentence. Id. He meets none of the requirements set forth in 28 24 U.S.C. § 2241(c). Instead, the Petition, which names the United States, 25 President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and an assortment of other 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// Dockets.Justia.com 1 governmental figures, is virtually unintelligible.1 See, e.g., Perales v. Cochran 2 Law Firm, Case No. SACV 10-1138 JVS (AGR) (C.D. Cal. 2010); Perales v. Apex 3 Building Maintenance, Case No. CV 10-16-UA-DUTY (C.D. Cal. 2010), Dkt. No. 2 4 (order denying leave to file action without prepayment of filing fee and collecting 5 previous denials).2 6 A petition for writ of habeas corpus is subject to summary dismissal when it 7 plainly appears on the face of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to 8 relief. Cf. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 9 States Courts ( [i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the 10 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, judge must dismiss petition 11 and direct clerk to notify petitioner); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 12 (9th Cir. 1990). 13 Summary dismissal is appropriate here because there is no basis for 14 habeas jurisdiction. The Petition is not cognizable under habeas and is frivolous. 15 See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 669-70, 125 S. Ct. 2562, 162 L. Ed. 2d 582 16 (2005) ( the purpose of the heightened pleading standard in habeas cases is to 17 help a district court weed out frivolous petitions before calling upon the State to 18 answer ). 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 26 27 28 1 Without explanation, Petitioner refers to and attaches exhibits related to a case before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. (Petition at 2 & Exhibits.) 2 See also Perales v. Wilshire Restaurant Group, Case No. SACV 091255-UA-DUTY (C.D. Cal. 2009). 2 1 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing the petition. 3 4 _______________________________ JAMES V. SELNA United States District Judge DATED: August 25 , 2010 5 6 7 Presented by: 8 9 10 __________________________ ALICIA G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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.