(HC) Webb v. Sisto, No. 2:2009cv00103 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/4/09 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed w/ prejudice. Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R w/in 20 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Webb v. Sisto Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL WEBB, Petitioner, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. CIV S-09-0103 FCD EFB P Respondent. 11 ORDER vs. D.K. SISTO, / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 18 A district court must entertain a habeas petition “in behalf of a person in custody 19 pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of 20 the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A judge 21 “entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an 22 order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it 23 appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 24 U.S.C. § 2243. The court has reviewed the petition in detail and, for the reasons explained 25 below, finds that the petition must be dismissed. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 26 Cases (requiring summary dismissal of habeas petition if, upon initial review by a judge, it 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 plainly appears “that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court”). Petitioner indicates that on May 18, 1990, he was convicted of first degree murder, 3 robbery, attempted robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, in the Los Angeles County 4 Superior Court. He requests that the court order that he be released from prison. Petitioner does 5 not, however, specify the grounds for relief or facts supporting each ground. Rather, petitioner 6 indicates that he is challenging the validity of the notes issued by the Federal Reserve and 7 alleges that former Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt have conspired to defraud American 8 citizens. This claim is not cognizable on habeas review, nor is it a cognizable as a civil rights 9 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 10 (1973) (suit under the civil rights statute is appropriate where a prisoner challenges the 11 conditions of his confinement). Therefore, the court will recommend that this action be 12 dismissed. 13 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with prejudice. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days 16 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 17 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 18 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 19 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 20 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 Dated: August 4, 2009. 22 23 24 25 26 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.
