Rhonda Thomas Greene v. Lynwood Chief of Police et al

Filing 3

ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 1 : (see document image for specifics). Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to send petitioner a blank Central District civil rights complaint form, which petitioner is encouraged to utilize should she desire to pursue this action. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (ad)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

) Case No. CV 15-00053-CJC (DTB)
)
Petitioner,
)
) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
vs.
) WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
)
LYNWOOD CHIEF OF POLICE, )
ET AL,
)
)
Respondent.
)
RHONDA THOMAS GREENE,

Petitioner purported to file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in

18 State Custody herein (“Pet.”) on January 5, 2015. The Court has reviewed the Petition
19 pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
20 District Courts (“Habeas Rules”) for purposes of determining whether “it plainly
21 appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
22 to relief.”
23

From the face of the Petition, it appears that petitioner’s claims are not directed

24 to the legality or duration of a current confinement. Rather, although the Petition is
25 handwritten and difficult to decipher, petitioner appears to be raising claims alleging
26 violations of her civil rights. Specifically, insofar as the Court can glean, petitioner
27 raises claims alleging false arrest, illegal eviction and illegal seizure of property. (See,
28 generally, Pet.)
1

1

Claims such as these may not properly be asserted in a habeas petition, or as

2 part of a habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
3 U.S. 475, 498-500, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973). Rather, such claims must
4 be asserted in a separate civil rights action.
5

The Court does have discretion to construe petitioner’s habeas petition as a civil

6 rights complaint. See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251, 92 S. Ct. 407, 30
7 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1971); Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 729 (9th Cir. 1974).
8 However, in this instance, the Court chooses not to exercise such discretion for the
9 following reason:
10

As the current action was not submitted on a civil rights complaint form, certain

11 critical information, such as the capacity in which the defendants are named, is
12 lacking.
13

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in

14 the United States District Courts,
15

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this action be summarily dismissed

16 without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to send petitioner a blank Central District
17 civil rights complaint form, which petitioner is encouraged to utilize should she desire
18 to pursue this action.
19

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

20
21 DATED: January 29, 2015
22
23
24
25

___________________________________
CORMAC J. CARNEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

26
27 _________________________
David T. Bristow
28 United States Magistrate Judge
2