Azael Dythian Perales v. Virgin Mobile USA et al, No. 8:2011cv01656 - Document 4 (C.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Judge James V. Selna. On October 17, 2011, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed this action. Summary dismissal is appropriate here because the petition is not cognizable under habeas and is frivolous. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing the petition. (See Order for details.) (mp)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES, 12 Petitioner, NO. SACV 11-1656 JVS (AGR) 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 On October 17, 2011, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed this action. 13 14 15 16 v. VIRGIN MOBILE USA, et al., Respondents. OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 19 Although Petitioner alleges his pleading is a petition for writ of habeas corpus 20 (Petition at 7), it is not cognizable on habeas. Petitioner is not incarcerated. See 21 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). He does not challenge a state judgment. Id. He meets 22 none of the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). Instead, Petitioner s 23 pleading consists of unintelligible, frivolous allegations against parties as diverse 24 as Richard Branson, President Obama, the Commissioner of the Internal 25 Revenue Service, Eric Holder, the president of the Screen Actors Guild, the 26 Pope, Marie Callender s, and the Queen of England. Petitioner is a frequent filer 27 of civil complaints in the Central District, and his actions have frequently been 28 dismissed because they are frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See, 1 e.g., Perales v. Apex Building Maintenance, Case No. CV 10-16, Dkt. No. 2 2 (collecting previous denials). 3 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 4 Courts provides that [i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the 5 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the 6 petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner. See also Hendricks v. 7 Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 8 9 Summary dismissal is appropriate here because the petition is not cognizable under habeas and is frivolous. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 669- 10 70, 125 S. Ct. 2562, 162 L. Ed. 2d 582 (2005) ( the purpose of the heightened 11 pleading standard in habeas cases is to help a district court weed out frivolous 12 petitions before calling upon the State to answer ); Blackledge v. Allison, 431 13 U.S. 63, 76, 97 S. Ct. 1621, 52 L. Ed. 2d 136 (1977) (summary dismissal is 14 appropriate when the allegations are patently frivolous or false ) (citation 15 omitted); see also Hendricks, 908 F.2d at 491 ( Summary dismissal is appropriate 16 . . . where the allegations in the petition are palpably incredible ) (citation 17 omitted). 18 19 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing the petition. 20 21 _______________________________ JAMES V. SELNA United States District Judge DATED: November 8, 2011 22 23 24 Presented by: 25 26 27 __________________________ ALICIA G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge 28 2

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.