Marcus L. Linthecome v. Alfaro, et al.

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Dismissing Petition Without Prejudice and With Leave to Amend by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. Based upon the foregoing deficiencies, the petition is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. Petitioner shall, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order, file an amended petition curing the deficiencies noted above. (see document for further details) (Attachments: # 1 SHC forms) (klg)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WESTERN DIVISION MARCUS LINTHECOME, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 v. SHERIFF JOHN MCMAHON, SAN BERNARDINO SHERIFF, 15 Respondents. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 17-7850-JGB(AJW) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 17 On September 18, 2017, petitioner filed this petition for a writ 18 of habeas corpus.1 [Docket No. (“Dkt”) 27 (Petition)]. According to the 19 petition, it attacks convictions and sentences imposed by the Los 20 Angeles County Superior Court in two separate criminal cases (case 21 nos. BA402255 and BA405320). [Dkt. 27 at 1]. Petitioner alleges the 22 following as grounds for relief: 23 Ground one: Data tampering by Agent Castaneda @ North Kern 24 State Prison to later be an excuse for false arrests 4xs til 25 26 1 27 28 Petitioner originally filed the action as a civil rights action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Pursuant to petitioner’s request, it was re-designated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. [See Dkts. 1, 16, 25, 26]. The petition was transferred to this Court on October 24, 2017. [Dkt. 28]. 1 I ran for my life b/c agents persisted w/arrests after 2 warned. My static 99 score is altered, proof I have sent 3 previously 5PH03633 transcript which your court previously 4 sent me a H. Corpus & I supplied w/the exhibits.... 5 * * * 6 Ground two: The illegal enforcement of stayed conditions 7 (backed by false tampering @NKSP by Castaneda (upon no 8 correction.) Static-99 is altered. Agent Castaneda did it, 9 but my P.O.’s use it as an excuse to try to get over jailing 10 me 4xs til I ran for my life, saying “you’re a Static-99(4) 11 “right risk” but my true score reveals in case # 5PH03633 as 12 NOT 4 nor 3, but (1-low) & these pages reveal Counselor 13 Castaneda @North kern State Prison (forgot) to (update) & 14 (tamper) the (internal) data to go with the outer-data he 15 altered. So w/out correction & credits & compensation I’m 16 still on parole b/c of this agents actions & still facing 17 future custody b/c I ran for my life from illegal jailings 18 4xs.... 19 * * * 20 Ground three: I’m currently affected (still) by the agents 21 actions that no correction is made to & subjects me further 22 to current custody & future custody b/c I ran for my life. 23 I possess a (do not house@ LA Co. Mens Central Jail alert) 24 Cops (LASD) agents tampered & deleted on its face. 25 * * * 26 Ground four: Current custody and future custody warrants 27 resulted b/c of non-correction of data tampered by NKSP 28 Agent Castaneda.... 2 1 [Dkt. 27 at 3-6]. 2 As relief, petitioner requests that this Court: (1) “recall 3 warrants” issued in what appears to be a pending Los Angeles Superior 4 Court 5 Victorville Superior Court; (3) order the correction of “data”; (4) 6 discharge him from parole; and (5) award him compensation for false 7 incarceration at a rate of $140 a day. [Dkt. 27 at 6]. 8 9 criminal case; (2) dismiss a pending criminal case in For the following reasons, the petition is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. 10 First, it is not clear why petitioner is in custody.2 Although he 11 purports to challenge 2013 and 2014 convictions in the Los Angeles 12 County Superior Court, his claims for relief do not appear to relate 13 to the validity of either of those convictions or sentences. To the 14 extent that petitioner attempts to challenge the legality of one or 15 both of those convictions or sentences, the Court cannot discern the 16 factual or legal basis for petitioner’s claims. Instead, petitioner’s 17 allegations are vague, conclusory, and unintelligible. 18 Second, many of petitioner’s allegations appear to be directed to 19 the legality of criminal proceedings currently pending in state court. 20 That is, petitioner seems to allege that due to an erroneous score, he 21 has been subjected to arrests (presumably related to the conditions of 22 his parole). To the extent that petitioner seeks to challenge either 23 warrants or pending criminal proceedings, his claims are premature. 24 “Younger [v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)] precluded federal intrusion 25 26 27 28 2 At the time he filed the petition, petitioner indicated that his address was West Valley Detention Center, but that he was awaiting transfer to either Patton or “Conrep” State Hospital. [Dkt. 27 at 1]. The basis for petitioner’s custody – either his current incarceration or his parole status – is not entirely clear. 3 1 into ongoing state criminal prosecutions.”3 Spring Comm’ns, Inc. v. 2 Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584, 591 (2013). “[O]nly in the most unusual 3 circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by 4 way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, 5 judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state 6 courts.” Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-765 (9th Cir. 1972) (per 7 curiam). 8 proceedings are currently pending. Although Younger abstention may not 9 be warranted if a prosecution is “undertaken by state officials 10 without hope of obtaining a valid conviction” or if a challenged 11 criminal statute is “flagrantly and patently violative of express 12 constitutional prohibitions”, Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 13 (1971), petitioner has not made such a showing. 14 Petitioner has not yet been convicted; his criminal Based upon the foregoing deficiencies, the petition is dismissed 15 without prejudice and with leave to amend. Petitioner shall, within 16 twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order, file an amended 17 petition curing the deficiencies noted above. 18 shall be filed on the forms provided by the Clerk and shall bear the 19 case number CV 17-7850-JGB(AJW), shall include information regarding 20 the conviction or decision petitioner intends to challenge, shall 21 provide the specific legal and factual basis for his claims for 22 relief, and shall indicate whether he has presented each claim to the 23 California Supreme Court. Petitioner is cautioned that failure to file The amended petition 24 25 26 27 28 3 The policy underlying Younger abstention is sufficiently important that federal courts may raise the issue sua sponte. Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 777, 781, n. 3 (9th Cir.1997), overruled on other grounds, Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2001); Romero v. California, 2012 WL 1570080, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2012)(citing New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 368 (1989)). 4 1 an amended petition within the time provided may result in dismissal 2 of this petition without prejudice. 3 It is so ordered. 4 5 Dated: November 14, 2017 6 7 Andrew J. Wistrich United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?