Walter Eliyah Thody v. United States of America, No. 5:2017cv02563 - Document 3 (C.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Percy Anderson (mt)

Download PDF
Walter Eliyah Thody v. United States of America Doc. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EASTERN DIVISION 11 WALTER ELIYAH THODY, Petitioner, 12 13 14 15 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. No. ED CV 17-02563-PA (DFM) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 16 17 18 On December 29, 2017, Walter Eliyah Thody (“Petitioner”) filed in this 19 Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody 20 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. 1 (“Petition”). According to the Federal Bureau 21 of Prisons Inmate Locator, Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Federal 22 Correctional Institution in Victorville, California. Petitioner’s sole claim is that 23 this Court should order his release because the United States District Court in 24 the Eastern District of Oklahoma has failed to respond promptly to Petitioner’s 25 filings in that district. Id. at 1. 26 Petitioner has a history of filing meritless habeas corpus petitions. In this 27 district, he has filed four previous petitions, all of which were dismissed 28 without prejudice: Case No. CV 15-1950 (September 2015), Case No. CV 15- Dockets.Justia.com 1 2013 (September 2015), Case No. CV 16-0161 (January 2016), and Case No. 2 CV 17-2024 (October 2017). Petitioner has also filed at least three habeas 3 petitions in other district courts, all of which were dismissed without prejudice. 4 See Baker v. Williams, No. 13-58, 2014 WL 1408074 (N.D. W. Va. Apr. 11, 5 2014); Thody v. O’Brien, No. 11-174, 2012 WL 4746684 (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 4, 6 2012); Thody v. Williamson, No. 05-0119, 2005 WL 1653173 (M.D. Pa. July 7 6, 2005). As for the pending Petition, it is not cognizable. A state prisoner’s 8 9 federal habeas claims must lie at “the core of habeas corpus,” i.e., success 10 would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration. 11 Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Here, 12 Petitioner appears to challenge the district court’s alleged delay in responding 13 to his filings in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. See Petition at 1 (noting that 14 court’s “default”). Whatever remedy this Court could afford Petitioner with 15 respect to any such delay—and Petitioner has not explained what jurisdiction 16 this Court would have to direct the actions of another United States District 17 Court—it would not be to order his release or confinement shortened. As to 18 any substantive claims about the underlying conviction, this Court has 19 previously told Petitioner that such claims must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 20 2255 before the sentencing court in Oklahoma. See Thody v. Tews, Case No. 21 CV 16-0161-PA (DFM), Dkt. 10. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition is DISMISSED 2 without prejudice. A certificate of appealability will not issue. Petitioner has 3 not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition 4 states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of 5 reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 6 procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 7 8 Dated: January 19, 2018 ______________________________ PERCY ANDERSON United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 Presented by: 13 _________________________ DOUGLAS F. McCORMICK United States Magistrate Judge 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.