Jim Ryan P. Ada v. Federal Board of Investigations

Filing 3

Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be Dismissed by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Petition appears subject to dismissal. Petitioner is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be dismissed no later than August 14, 2017. (dc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

SACV 17-1136-GW (KK)

Date: July 14, 2017

Title: Jim Ryan P. Ada v. Federal Board of Investigations

Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEB TAYLOR

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be
Dismissed
I.
INTRODUCTION

On July 3, 2017, Carmelita P. Ada, purportedly on behalf of her son, Petitioner Jim Ryan
P. Ada, filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody.” ECF
Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition appears subject to
dismissal. The Court will not make a final determination regarding whether the federal Petition
should be dismissed, however, without giving Petitioner an opportunity to address these issues.
Accordingly, the Court hereby issues this Order to Show Cause why the Petition should
not be dismissed, and specifically orders Petitioner to respond to the Order to Show Cause in
writing no later than August 14, 2017. The Court further directs Petitioner to review the
information that follows, which provides additional explanation as to why the federal Petition
appears to be subject to dismissal and may assist Petitioner in determining how to respond.
///
///
///
///

Page 1 of 3

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

II.
DISCUSSION
A.

PETITION IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL BECAUSE IT IS NOT SIGNED BY
PETITIONER

Petitioner Jim Ryan P. Ada did not sign the Petition. The district court may dismiss or
refuse to file a petition that is unsigned or unverified by the petitioner. See Hendricks v.
Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990); Application of Gibson, 218 F.2d 320 (9th Cir. 1954),
cert. denied, 348 U.S. 955 (1955).
Petitioner’s mother, Carmelita P. Ada, purports to bring this action pro se on behalf of
Petitioner. Petitioner’s mother may not do so. A non-lawyer may not represent in litigation
anyone other than himself or herself. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998);
Johns v. Cty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997).
Even if Petitioner is a minor, which is unclear in light of the allegation he was enrolled in
high school in 2015, his non-lawyer mother may not litigate on Petitioner’s behalf. See L.R. 832.10.2 (“A non-attorney guardian for a minor or an incompetent person must be represented by
counsel.”); Bullock v. Dioguardi, 847 F. Supp. 553, 560 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (“Although a parent has
a right to litigate claims on h[er] own behalf without an attorney, [s]he cannot litigate the claims
of h[er] children unless [s]he obtains counsel.”), accord Osei-Afriyie by Osei-Afriyie v. Med.
Coll. of Pennsylvania, 937 F.2d 876, 882-83 (3d Cir. 1991); Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found. of
Buffalo, Inc., 906 F.2d 59, 61 (2d Cir. 1990); Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153, 154 (10th Cir.
1986).
B.

PETITION IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

A habeas petition “is expected to state facts that point to a real possibility of
constitutional error.” Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 76 n.7, 97 S. Ct. 1621, 1630, 52 L. Ed.
2d 136 (U.S. 1977) (citation omitted). Failing to do so, the Petition is subject to dismissal. Id.;
see Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204-05 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1143 (1996)
(holding conclusory allegations unsupported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant
habeas relief); Mihailoviki v. State of Cal., 364 F.2d 808, 809 (9th Cir. 1966) (affirming dismissal
of petition with, inter alia, contained unintelligible and conclusory allegations); Hines v.
Napolitano, No. CIV. 071816-WQH (RBB), 2007 WL 2859745, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2007)
(dismissing petition which contained “unintelligible allegations without any specific federal
constitutional grounds for relief”; court need not “engage in a tenuous analysis in order to
attempt to identify and ma[k]e sense of the Petition”); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 29, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 118 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1992) (finding court need not accept the truth of
apparently delusional allegations). Moreover, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
requires that a pleading contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

Page 2 of 3

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

Here, the Petition vaguely and confusingly appears to allege that the “Federal Board of
Investigations” caused Petitioner to go to a different public high school in Orange County,
California than where his mother had originally enrolled him, that Petitioner is somehow being
held in custody in the Northern Mariana Islands (notwithstanding his attendance at a public high
school in California), and that medicines triggering “paralysis” and “euthanasia” are being
placed into Petitioner’s food and water. See Pet. at 3-4. Therefore, the Petition fails to state a
cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. In addition, the Petition violates Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, because the Petition is so vague and confusing as to leave uncertain the
nature of Petitioner’s claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
C.

PETITION IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the United States District Courts “within their
respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Section 2241(a) requires that “the court issuing
the writ have jurisdiction over the custodian.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of
Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 495, 93 S. Ct. 1123, 35 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1973). This rule ensures that the
custodian will be amenable to service of process. Id.; see also Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244,
248 (9th Cir. 1989).
According to the Petition, Petitioner’s “custodian,” if any, would appear to be located in
the Northern Mariana Islands, an area not within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, it
appears that this Court may lack jurisdiction.
III.
ORDER
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Petition appears subject to dismissal. Petitioner is
therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be dismissed no later
than August 14, 2017. Petitioner must respond in writing by either (a) clearly explaining why the
deficiencies referenced above do not warrant dismissal; or (b) filing a First Amended Petition
curing the above referenced deficiencies. The First Amended Petition shall be complete in itself.
It shall not refer in any manner to the original Petition. In other words, Petitioner must start over
when preparing the First Amended Petition.
The Court expressly warns Petitioner that failure to timely file a response to this
Order will result in the Court dismissing this action without prejudice for his failure to
comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner at his
current address of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 3 of 3

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __