(HC) Holliday v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, No. 1:2007cv01626 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2008)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED signed by Magistrate Judge Theresa A. Goldner on 2/6/2008. Motion referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii, Objections to F&R due by 3/3/2008. (Esteves, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Holliday v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOHN HOLLIDAY, 11 12 Petitioner, v. 13 14 15 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:07-cv-01626-AWI-TAG HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 8) 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action has been referred to the United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72-302. 20 On November 9, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 21 (Doc. 1). On January 15, 2008, the Court, after screening the petition, ordered Petitioner to file 22 an amended petition because the claims raised in the original petition were unintelligible. (Doc. 23 7). On January 28, 2008, Petitioner filed his amended petition. (Doc. 8). However, the amended 24 petition is also unintelligible. Therefore, the Court will recommend that the amended petition be 25 dismissed for failure to state a federal claim. 26 A. Failure to State a Discernable Claim. 27 28 Petitioner must state his claim with sufficient specificity. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491-492 (9th Cir. 1990); Wacht v. Cardwell, 604 F.2d 1245, 1246-1247 (9th Cir.1979). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states, in relevant part: [The petition] shall specify all of the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner of which he has or by the exercise of due diligence should have knowledge and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified. It shall also state the relief requested. The petition shall be typewritten or legibly handwritten and shall be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner. 5 (Emphasis added.) 6 The original petition was unintelligible. For example, under the section provided for 7 listing his grounds for relief, Petitioner wrote,“Analoges estimates—statistical and deadly force 8 review board (rules/standards).” (Doc. 1, p. 4). Under “supporting facts” for that claim, 9 Petitioner wrote, “Nature of crimes to be violated---Criminal law. For movement reactions. 10 Resistance welfare sp (HUD and GAU) unemployment social security banking (SEC notes and 11 currency stock).” (Id.). Under Ground Two, Petitioner wrote, “Digitalous estimates. Arm bar 12 squad. Principles and WASP (quarantine ordinances).” (Id.). 13 The Court afforded Petitioner an opportunity to rectify the above-mentioned defects by in 14 an amended petition. (Doc. 7). Unfortunately, the amended petition is as incomprehensible as 15 the original petition. Under Ground One of the amended petition, Petitioner asserts, “Arms 16 Control & Preflight Diagnostics. . .for movement, reactions, solidarity and resistance. In re 17 Habeas Corpus. Amount $2,000,000,000.00 credit. 2-3% of 25692 with culpability of the 18 implimentation [sic]of credible embezzling in regards to arson and the occurrence of mortal 19 murder. Integrity in the application of extortion.” (Doc. 8, p. 5). 20 Ground Two alleges, “ARM MAR Squad & WASP (quarantine - ordinances) . . .For 21 movement, reactions solidarity and resistance. Petition herewith wrote must be formidable in 22 sabotage and arson amount $500,000,000.00 MPC—$200,000,000.00 50% Adjoinment covers 23 all the natures of negligence and liability. I’m assured you can handle all the principals of 24 judiciary policy.” (Id.). 25 Ground Three alleges, “AC-DC & A complete diagnostic Compartment or Department 26 for statistical analysis. . . For movement, reactions solidarity and resistance. We want 27 employment rather than unemployment. Bill of Tender $3,000,000.00 credit.” (Id. at p. 6). 28 2 1 Finally, Ground Four alleges, “Principles, rules and regulations. . . . For movement, 2 reactions, solidarity and resistance. In the lime light with the powers of blue magic 3 knowledgeable of greed, corruption, and power. Exorcize all my evils, to rise up in greed, 4 corruption and power. And espionage.” (Id.). 5 The amended claims are, in the Court’s view, unintelligible, incomprehensible, and 6 meaningless. 7 B. Failure to State a Federal Claim 8 9 10 11 12 The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Subsection (c) of Section 2241 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states: The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 13 (emphasis added). See also, Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 14 States District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack 15 by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 16 484, 93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973). 17 Furthermore, in order to succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner 18 must demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim in state court 19 20 21 resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 22 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1),(2). 23 In the instant amended petition, Petitioner fails to state a cognizable federal claim. 24 Petitioner does not allege a violation of the Constitution or federal law, nor does he argue that he 25 is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. Petitioner does not allege that the 26 adjudication of his claims in state court “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved 27 an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, . . . or resulted in a decision that 28 3 1 was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court 2 lacks jurisdiction to hear claims that do not allege violations of federal law that are cognizable 3 under its habeas jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court will recommend dismissal of the amended 4 petition. 5 RECOMMENDATIONS 6 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the amended petition for writ of 7 habeas corpus (Doc. 8) be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which habeas relief may 8 be granted. 9 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of 11 the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 12 Within twenty (20) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections 13 with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 14 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served 15 and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the 16 objections. The District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 17 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 18 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 19 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: February 6, 2008 j6eb3d /s/ Theresa A. Goldner UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
