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)

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