-AGR Azael Dythian Perales v. United States of America, No. 8:2010cv01737 - 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 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. U.S. Department of Labor, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. SACV 10-1737 JVS (AGR) OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS On November 12, 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 the United States 25 Department of Labor, President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and an 26 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 assortment of other governmental figures, is virtually unintelligible.1 See, e.g., 2 Perales v. United States, Case No. SACV 10-1472 JVS (AGR) (C.D. Cal. 2010); 3 Perales v. United States, Case No. SACV 10-1250 JVS (AGR) (C.D. Cal. 2010); 4 Perales v. Cochran Law Firm, Case No. SACV 10-1138 JVS (AGR) (C.D. Cal. 5 2010); Perales v. Apex Building Maintenance, Case No. CV 10-16-UA-DUTY 6 (C.D. Cal. 2010), Dkt. No. 2 (order denying leave to file action without 7 prepayment of filing fee and collecting previous denials).2 8 A petition for writ of habeas corpus is subject to summary dismissal when it 9 plainly appears on the face of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to 10 relief. Cf. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 11 States Courts ( [i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the 12 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, judge must dismiss petition 13 and direct clerk to notify petitioner); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 14 (9th Cir. 1990). 15 Summary dismissal is appropriate here because there is no basis for 16 habeas jurisdiction. The Petition is not cognizable under habeas and is frivolous. 17 See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 669-70, 125 S. Ct. 2562, 162 L. Ed. 2d 582 18 (2005) ( the purpose of the heightened pleading standard in habeas cases is to 19 help a district court weed out frivolous petitions before calling upon the State to 20 answer ). 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 25 26 27 28 1 Petitioner begins the pleading by addressing the Chief Judge of the Central District of the California Ronald Reagan U.S. Courthouse. (Petition at 2.) The Petition is imbedded in the middle of an array of other papers. The first page of the filed document is a Cover Sheet form from the United States Court of Federal Claims. (Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2.) 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: November 29, 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.