(HC)Hairston v. California State Lottery et al, No. 2:2014cv00911 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 09/23/14 ORDERING that the clerk of the court make a random district judge assignment to this case. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez randomly assigned to this case. Also, RECOMMENDING that this purported petition be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules governing section 2254 cases in the United States District Courts. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF

(HC)Hairston v. California State Lottery et al Doc. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBEY HAIRSTON, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:14-cv-0911 AC Petitioner, v. ORDER AND CALIFORNIA LOTTERY TREASURE, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondents. Petitioner was a state prisoner at Wasco State Prison when he filed the instant petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus. According to the case docket, petitioner has since been transferred to 19 California Correctional Institution. 20 The undersigned will recommend summary dismissal of the filing before this court. 21 Petitioner names as respondents the “California Lottery Treasure” and “Barack Obama,” the 22 President of the United States. “A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer 23 having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition. This person typically is the 24 warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated. Brittingham v. United States, 982 25 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992).” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 26 1994) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. ' 2254). Failure to name the petitioner's custodian as a 27 respondent deprives federal courts of personal jurisdiction. Id.; Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 28 249 (9th Cir. 1989). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 It is difficult to discern the putative grounds of the would-be petition. Petitioner alleges 2 that the Lottery has robbed millions from “App. Committee,” “violating civil rights . . . cashing 3 checks[,] committing fraud, embezzling funds from taxes.” See Petition. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1983. Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 [] (1973); requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a ' 1983 action. Some cases are hybrids, with a prisoner seeking relief unavailable in habeas, notably damages, but on allegations that not only support a claim for recompense, but imply the invalidity either of an underlying conviction or of a particular ground for denying release short of serving the maximum term of confinement. Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S.749, 750-751 (2004) (per curiam). Petitioner’s filing does not come close to constituting a petition for writ of habeas corpus 13 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or even a hybrid of 14 the two. Petitioner states no facts that might support a challenge to his conviction, and states no 15 facts that suggest the existence of a plausible challenge to his conditions of confinement. 16 Accordingly, the court can discern no manner by which the defects of petitioner’s pleading could 17 be cured. Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497(9th Cir. 1995) (“a district court should grant 18 leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the 19 pleading could not be cured by the allegation of other facts.”). 20 21 22 23 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court make a random district judge assignment to this case. IT IS RECOMMENDED that this purported petition be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 27 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 28 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections 2 1 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Courts order. Martinez v. 2 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 DATED: September 23, 2014 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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.