(HC) Banks v. Central Intelligence Agency et al, No. 1:2018cv01655 - Document 2 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER to ASSIGN Case to District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Frivolous 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 12/5/18. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 FREDERICK BANKS, 9 Case No. 1:18-cv-01655-JDP Petitioner, 10 ORDER TO ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE v. 11 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS FRIVOLOUS HABEAS PETITION CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, U.S. SENATE, and U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, et al., 13 14 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS Respondents. ECF No. 1 15 Petitioner Frederick Banks, a federal pretrial detainee without counsel, seeks a writ of 16 17 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner does not challenge his conviction, his 18 sentence, or the execution of his sentence. He alleges instead that: (1) the CIA used satellite 19 signals to cause Ian Long to carry out the recent shooting at a bar; (2) the Ventura County 20 Sheriff failed to investigate the shooting by using discovery under the Foreign Intelligence 21 Surveillance Act of 1978; (3) the FBI and CIA used electronic handcuffs to cause Long to 22 carry out the shooting; (4) the CIA used the “Voice of God Weapon” at and “Synthetic 23 Telepathy” against news sources to cause the recent forest fire in Paradise, California in an 24 attempt to destroy evidence that the CIA is responsible for sonic attacks on U.S. embassies in 25 Cuba and China. See ECF No. 1 at 6-7.1 The petition is “patently frivolous,” so the court 26 Petitioner has argued in another case that a prior conviction should be invalidated “because Petitioner only just learned that he has delusional disorder making him incompetent to ever be 28 tried in Court.” United States v. Banks, No. 96-cr-64, 2017 WL 1227305, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 27 1 1 1 should dismiss it under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which the court 2 may apply in any habeas proceeding. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 1(b); 3 Ross v. Williams, 896 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018). Because petitioner is in federal custody2 4 and seeks habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the court need not consider whether to issue a 5 certificate of appealability. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008). 6 I. Order The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a United States District Judge. 7 8 II. Findings and Recommendations We recommend that the court deny the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 1. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. District Court Judge 10 11 presiding over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of 12 Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days of 13 the service of the findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections to the 14 findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document 15 must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 16 District Judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. 17 § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 18 waiver of rights on appeal. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: December 5, 2018 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 1, 2017). 27 28 2 Petitioner is currently in custody in connection with a federal criminal proceeding. See generally United States v. Banks, No. 2:15-cr-00168 (W.D. Pa. filed Aug. 5, 2015). 2 `