(HC) Hill v. Lizarraga, No. 2:2016cv01581 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 08/03/16 ORDERING the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the petition filed in this case together with a copy of these findings and recommendations on the Attorney General of the State of California. Also, RECOMMENDING that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed; and the District Court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (cc: Michael Farrell, Attorney General) (Plummer, M) Modified on 8/4/2016 (Plummer, M).

Download PDF
(HC) Hill v. Lizarraga Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND ANTHONY HILL, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:16-cv-01581 JAM GGH P Petitioner, v. ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JOE LIZARRAGA, Warden, Respondent. 16 17 On July 11, 2016, Petitioner, a prisoner at Mule Creek State Prison, filed a document 18 entitled “Notice of Motion and Motion to Vacate the Attachment of Raymond Anthony Hill.” 19 ECF No. 1. The court docketed the matter as a Petition for Habeas Corpus insofar as Petitioner 20 refers to Respondent Lizarraga as “the custodian of Petitioner, . . .”. Id. at 2:21-22. He avers that 21 he is a “public vessel,” id. at 17, and that “Respondent does not have a valid prima facie admiralty 22 claim to meet the burden of proof to obtain an attachment of Petitioner.” Id. at 3:7-9. He seeks 23 vacation of his attachment. Id. at 3:17. Petitioner has neither sought to proceed in forma 24 pauperis, nor has he paid the required filing fee to take his Claim forward. 25 26 DISCUSSION Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides for 27 summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and 28 any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Here, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 petitioner’s claims are virtually unintelligible and nonsensical. It is plain from the petition and 2 appended exhibits that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. Therefore, the petition 3 should be summarily dismissed. 4 Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court must 5 issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. A 6 certificate of appealability may issue only “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 7 denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). For the reasons set forth in these 8 findings and recommendations, a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right has 9 not been made in this case. 10 11 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to 12 serve a copy of the petition filed in this case together with a copy of these findings and 13 recommendations on the Attorney General of the State of California. 14 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 15 1. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed; and 16 2. The District Court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 19 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 20 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 21 Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections 22 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. 23 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1991). 24 Dated: August 3, 2016 25 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 Hill.1581.sumdis.amm 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.