-AGR Azael Dythian Perales et al v. Dollar Tree Inc et al, No. 8:2010cv01772 - 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 et al v. Dollar Tree Inc 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 14 15 16 17 18 v. DOLLAR TREE, INC., et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. SACV 10-1772 JVS (AGR) OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS On November 18, 2010, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed an Application 19 for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Petition ). Although captioned as a petition for writ 20 of habeas corpus, it plainly appears from the face of the Petition that this Court 21 does not have habeas jurisdiction. Petitioner is not incarcerated or in custody. 22 See 28 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 Dollar Tree, Inc., President 25 Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Chief Justice John Roberts, and an 26 assortment of other governmental figures (including all related defendants ), is 27 virtually unintelligible. See, e.g., Perales v. United States, Case No. SACV 10- 28 1737 JVS (AGR) (C.D. Cal. 2010); Perales v. United States, Case No. SACV 10- Dockets.Justia.com 1 1472 JVS (AGR) (C.D. Cal. 2010); Perales v. United States, Case No. SACV 10- 2 1250 JVS (AGR) (C.D. Cal. 2010); Perales v. Cochran Law Firm, Case No. SACV 3 10-1138 JVS (AGR) (C.D. Cal. 2010); Perales v. Apex Building Maintenance, 4 Case No. CV 10-16-UA-DUTY (C.D. Cal. 2010), Dkt. No. 2 (order denying leave 5 to file action without prepayment of filing fee and collecting previous denials).1 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 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing 20 the Petition. 21 DATED: November 30, 2010 22 23 24 25 26 _______________________________ JAMES V. SELNA United States District Judge Presented by: __________________________ ALICIA G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 1 See also Perales v. Wilshire Restaurant Group, Case No. SACV 091255-UA-DUTY (C.D. Cal. 2009). 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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.