Rickey Alford v. Jane Doe

Filing 3

ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. IT IS ORDERED that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice. (See Order for complete details) Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (afe)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 RICKEY ALFORD, ) Case No. CV 18-00398-AB (AS) ) ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. 16 JANE DOE, 17 Respondent. 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 21 On January 17, 2018, Rickey Alford (“Petitioner”), a 22 California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for 23 Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 24 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). (Docket Entry No. 1).1 25 26 1 27 28 Petitioner apparently has filed more than fifty actions in this Court, many of which have been summarily dismissed. See Rickey Louis Alford v. Octavio C. Luna, et al., Case No. CV 1200267-MMM (AJW); Docket Entry No. 5 at 1 n.1. 1 1 The Petition asserts the following grounds for federal habeas 2 relief: (1) “Proposition 57 voted in Nov. 8, 2016, forwarded by 3 California Legislature 8 CDCR[.] For about six month[s] the 4 Governor Jerry Brown in the News Paper presented in the New to 5 present to the People to release people who had non-violent crimes 6 all attacked by CDCR 8 Cal. Legislature[.]”; (2) “Female KKK 7 Counselor and staff have worked Against Alford 14th Amend. Sex 8 discrimination[.] Female KKK employees have attacked petitioner 9 who shoulld have been released July 1, 2017 when Proposition 57 10 went into effect to strick enhancements[,] 14th Amendment Sex 11 Discrimination hate against Black men[.]”; (3) “Fraud of the 12 Election, 18 USC sec. 1001 inmates informed through administrative 13 memos[.] [T]hrough memos throughout the CDCR inmates from other 14 prison received some information that Prop. 57 would release non15 violent crimes, U.S. Const 1, sec. C1, 3 bill of attainder, ex 16 post facto[.]”; (4) “Administrative procedure denied or any Due 17 Process see the memos in circulation[.] Impeachment of the 18 Process in the California Legislature and CDCR see Treat, 18 U.SC 19 sec. ––- insurrection and rebellion Nixon v. Sirica (1972)”; and 20 (5) “Female employees attacking as Ku Klux Klans all Blacks 21 appeals in Courts and Prisons. Impeachment of females handling 22 Black Federal men appeals State and Courts, CDCR appeals, 23 obstructing every appeal either in prison or in states or Federal 24 Courts, racial discrimination sexual[.]” (Petition at 5-6). 25 26 A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus can only be filed by a 27 petitioner who is in state custody and contends that such custody 28 is in violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the 2 1 United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c). 2 3 The claims alleged in the Petition are incomprehensible, 4 vague and conclusory. See Hendrix v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 5 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the 6 allegations 7 palpably in the incredible petition . . are . ‘vague ‘or [or] patently conclusory” or frivolous or 8 false.’”)(citations omitted). 9 10 Moreover, to the extent that Petitioner has attempted to 11 allege sentencing error claims, these claims only involve the 12 application and/or interpretation of state law and consequently 13 are not cognizable on federal habeas review. See 28 U.S.C. § 14 2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991)(reiterating 15 that it is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine 16 state court determinations on state law questions); Smith v. 17 Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 221 (1982)(“A federally issued writ of 18 habeas corpus, of course, reaches only convictions obtained in 19 violation of some provision of the United States Constitution.”); 20 Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir. 1994); Kennick v. 21 Superior Court, 736 F.2d 1277, 1280 (9th Cir. 1984); see also 22 Borroughs v. Davis, 2015 WL 3867928, *5 (petitioner’s claim 23 challenging the denial of his petitions/motion to recall and 24 reduce his sentence under Proposition 36 was not cognizable on 25 federal habeas review). Similarly, Petitioner’s attempt to 26 characterize his claim concerning release under Proposition 57 as 27 a federal constitutional claim (see Petition at 5-6) is not 28 sufficient to render it cognizable. 3 See e.g., Langford v. Day, 1 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[The petitioner] may not 2 . . . transform a state law issue into a federal one merely by 3 asserting a violation of due process’”); Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 4 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1995); Hendricks v. Zenon, 993 F.2d 5 664, 674 (9th Cir. 1993). 6 7 In addition, Petitioner has failed to allege any claim(s), 8 much less any the claims which go to the fact or duration of his 9 confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). 10 11 Finally, since Petitioner has failed to name the proper 12 respondent, the name of the state officer having custody over 13 Petitioner (i.e., prison warden), see Stanley v. California 14 Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1984); Rule 2(a), Rules 15 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States Supreme Court, 16 the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Petition. See Smith v. 17 Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 352-55 (9th Cir. 2004). 18 19 Because Petitioner does not state a claim for relief under 20 28 U.S.C. § 2254, dismissal of the Petition is warranted. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 4 1 II. ORDER 2 3 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition be dismissed 4 without prejudice. 5 6 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 7 8 DATED: March 6, 2018 9 10 _____________________________ ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 Presented by: 16 17 / s / ALKA SAGAR 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 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?