(HC) Townsend v. Price, No. 2:2020cv00333 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/9/2020 GRANTING 5 Motion to Proceed IFP; ORDERING Clerk to randomly assign a U.S. District Judge to this case; and RECOMMENDING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed. Assigned and referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Townsend v. Price Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REBIO RONNIE TOWNSEND, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:20-cv-0333-EFB P v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BRANDON PRICE, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner proceeds pro se and is civilly committed at Coalinga State Hospital. He has 17 18 filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) which makes the required showing 19 and will be granted. However, for the reasons stated below his habeas petition must be dismissed. 20 I. Legal Standards 21 The court must dismiss a habeas petition or portion thereof if the prisoner raises claims 22 that are legally “frivolous or malicious” or fail to state a basis on which habeas relief may be 23 granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). The court must dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly 24 appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]” 25 Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 II. 2 The petition (ECF No. 1) is difficult to follow. As best the court can tell, it identifies four Analysis 3 grounds for relief and seeks $50,000,0001 and “release.” ECF No. 1 at 15. As discussed below, 4 none of the grounds for relief articulate a substantive legal basis for federal habeas relief and 5 ground one appears to be successive.2 The court recommends that the petition be dismissed 6 without leave to amend, as such leave appears to be futile. 7 In ground one, petitioner contends that the lies of psychiatrists “over the last 15 years” 8 have played a role in his “long, unlawful incarceration.” ECF No. 1 at 5. To the extent that 9 ground one is a challenge to his 2008 conviction, entered twelve years ago in the Sacramento 10 County Superior Court, the petition is successive, see Townsend v. Atascadero State Hospital, 11 No. 2:11-cv-2058-GGH (E.D. Cal.), and cannot be entertained by this court unless the Ninth 12 Circuit authorizes it to go forward. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Moreover, none of the alleged 13 facts make much sense or come close to demonstrating a possible constitutional violation. See, 14 e.g., ECF No. 1 at 5 (alleging that psychiatrist said petitioner “had threatened to kill [his] drill- 15 sergeant when no one ever knew [he] was in the military.”). 16 In ground two, petitioner states that he was deemed a “mentally disordered offender” and 17 civilly committed in 2012, and in ground three, he seems to vaguely challenge a decision of an 18 appellate court. Id. at 7-8. To the extent these grounds for relief are intended to challenge his 19 commitment as a “mentally disordered offender,” Rule 2(e) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 20 Cases in the United States District Courts precludes him from doing so. The Rule provides that 21 “a petitioner who seeks relief from judgments of more than one state court must file a separate 22 23 1 To the extent that petitioner attempts to challenge the conditions of his confinement, or seeks monetary damages for same, he must pursue such claims through a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 24 2 25 26 27 28 A petition is second or successive if it makes “claims contesting the same custody imposed by the same judgment of a state court” that the petitioner previously challenged, and on which the federal court issued a decision on the merits. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-86 (2000). Before filing a second or successive petition in a district court, a petitioner must obtain from the appellate court “an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Without an order from the appellate court, the district court is without jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. 147. 2 1 petition covering the judgment or judgments of each court.” Since petitioner’s first ground for 2 relief appears tied to his 2008 conviction, he may not also pursue his 2012 designation as a 3 “mentally disordered offender” through this action. Even assuming he could so proceed, he 4 would not be entitled to any relief. The grounds for relief read as long, unfocused ramblings, and 5 do not specify any legal or factual bases for relief. See, e.g., ECF No. 1 at 7 (Ground Two 6 alleging his psychiatrist had “lay in wait” for him); id. at 8 (Ground Three alleging that he was 7 “wrongfully [ ] set-up and labelled as a ‘mentally disordered offender,’ [which] is a complete and 8 utterly conceived fraud.”). 9 In ground four, petitioner states that he is subject to a court order requiring that he be 10 permanently placed on psychiatric medication. ECF No. 1 at 10. Courts have previously 11 informed petitioner that if he wishes to challenge court-ordered involuntary medication, his 12 remedy may be to challenge the order in the court where the order requiring involuntary 13 medication was issued. See Townsend v. King, No. 2:15-cv-1878-KJN (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2019), 14 ECF No. 17 at 1-2; Mendoza v. Gill, 1:14-cv-0098-AWI-GSA (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2014), ECF No. 15 6 at 3. 16 III. 17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 18 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED; and 19 2. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. 20 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED. 21 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge Conclusion 22 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 23 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 24 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 25 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 26 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 27 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In 28 his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the 3 1 event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases 2 (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order 3 adverse to the applicant). 4 DATED: April 9, 2020. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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.
