Hubbard v. George
Filing
5
ORDER Directing the Clerk of the Court to Assign a District Judge to the Case; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) be DENIED as Frivolous signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston o n 9/29/2015. This case has been assigned to District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill and Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. The new case number is 1:15-cv-01441-LJO-JLT (HC). Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within twenty-one (21) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ZANE HUBBARD,
12
Petitioner,
13
v.
14
CHARLES PHILIP ARTHUR GEORGE,
15
Respondent.
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:15-cv-01441-JLT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AS FRIVOLOUS (Doc. 1)
ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE
FILED WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE
COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO
THE CASE
18
In this action, Petitioner asserts violations of the Maryland Toleration Act of 1649 and the
19
20
Coercive Acts of 1774, among other claims, and names Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth II of Great
21
Britain and Pope Francis, as respondents. The claims are utterly without any legal or factual basis and,
22
therefore, should be DISMISSED as frivolous.
23
I.
24
DISCUSSION
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary
25
review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly
26
appears from the face of the petition...that the petition is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules
27
Governing 2254 Cases. The Court must summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the
28
petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....”
1
1
Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez,
2
908 F.2d 490 (9th cir. 1990). Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the
3
petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. Hendricks v.
4
Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackkledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76
5
(1977)). Under § 2243, it is the duty of the Court to screen out frivolous applications and to eliminate
6
the burden that would be placed on the respondent by ordering an unnecessary answer. Allen v. Perini,
7
424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970); see Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
8
Section 2254 Cases. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a
9
petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s
10
motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed.
11
Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512
12
U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). The petitioner shall set
13
forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds specified and shall state the relief
14
requested. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. As mentioned above, a petition may be
15
dismissed if the factual allegations are so palpably incredible or so patently frivolous or false as to
16
warrant summary dismissal. Blackledge, 431 U.S. at 78. A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an
17
arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v.
18
Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-1228 (9th Cir. 1984). The Court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as
19
frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
20
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim,
21
whether inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d
22
639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate
23
that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4,
24
pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed.
25
Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 8, 1976 Adoption; see Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th
26
Cir.2001).
27
Petitioner’s claims should be denied as patently frivolous Ground one in the petition lists
28
violations of the Maryland Toleration Act of 1649 and the Coercive Acts of 1774. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
2
1
Among others, Petitioner lists Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain, and Pope
2
Francis, as respondents. Leaving aside the issue of whether habeas jurisdiction can be predicated upon
3
British laws the pre-existed the formation of the United States, the claim is utterly without any legal or
4
factual basis.
5
Ground two alleges “treason and levy against the United States,” and is also directed against the
6
Prince of Wales, Great Britain. Again, the claim makes no sense and is patently frivolous. Ground
7
three alleges that Petitioner’s “criminal record” is “unconstitutional,” and “is not grounds for
8
sterilization or asexualization or any form of corporal punishment.” (Doc. 1, p. 28). To the extent that
9
it is intelligible, it appears to allude to conditions of Petitioner’s confinement, not to the fact or duration
10
of his confinement, as required for habeas jurisdiction. A habeas corpus petition is the correct method
11
for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573,
12
574 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485, 93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973); Ramirez
13
v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003)(“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action
14
proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s
15
sentence”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
16
Ground four contends that Petitioner has been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, in
17
violation of the Eighth Amendment, based on discrimination against him on religious grounds by
18
prison personnel. (Doc. 1, p. 47). However, Petitioner fails to present any details of such persecution.
19
Petitioner avers that, unless he is provided with an attorney, he does “not wish to proceed with
20
this proceeding….” (Doc. 1, p. 50). Petitioner contends that he is unable to undertake legal research or
21
retain a private attorney because of the “conditions of confinement.” (Id.). As relief, Petitioner
22
requests a new criminal trial, as well as damages in the amount of $1.5 billion. (Doc. 1, p. 57).
23
Petitioner also requests a “name change” under California law, apparently to “Emiliano Zapata Satan.”
24
(Id., p. 11; p. 57).
25
As mentioned, a claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
26
fact. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d at 1227-1228. Here, Petitioner does not
27
allege any claims that are cognizable under federal habeas corpus law, nor does he provide more than
28
bare notice pleading, i.e., none of the claims are supported by specific factual allegations. Rather,
3
1
Petitioner makes wildly frivolous allegations that are completely without any supporting evidence or
2
factual details. All of the claims in the petition are entirely conclusory.
In sum, the petition is absurd on its face and utterly without any legal basis in federal habeas
3
4
law. The Court has pending before it at this time many legitimate habeas petitions from petitioners
5
who are raising colorable and arguable federal constitutional claims. To further entertain Petitioner’s
6
patently frivolous contentions would do a disservice both to the federal courts as well as to those
7
petitioners who are forced to wait for decisions in their cases while the Court addresses meritless claims
8
such as those raised in the instant petition.1
ORDER
9
For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign this
10
11
case to a United States District Judge.
RECOMMENDATION
12
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1),
13
14
be DENIED as frivolous.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge
15
16
assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local
17
Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 21 days
18
after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written
19
objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Currently, in addition to this matter, Petitioner has at least four active habeas petitions in this Court (case numbers: 1:13cv-01758-LJO-JLT; 1:14-cv-00318-AWI-SMS; 1:15-cv-01138-LJO-MJS; 1:15-cv-01192-AWI-JLT). Also, he has filed
17 habeas petitions since 2013 that have been closed. (Case numbers: 1:13-cv-01789-SKO; 1:13-cv-02069-LJO-MJS;
1:13-cv-02099-RJT; 1:14-cv-00043-LJO-GSA; 1:14-cv-00318-AWI-SMS; 1:14-cv-00328-AWI-BAM; 1:14-cv-00345LJO-SAB; 1:14-cv-00360-LJO-SMS; 1:14-cv-00467-AWI-SAB; 1:14-cv-00509-LJO-SAB; 1:14-cv-00510-LJO-GSA;
1:14-cv-00597-LJO-GSA; 1:15-cv-00269-AWI-JLT; 1:15-cv-00741-LJO-MJS; 2:13-cv-01254-EFB; 2:13-cv-02215-AC).
As well, he has filed 29 cases since 2013 complaining about the conditions of his confinement. Of these, two remain
active (case numbers:1:13-cv-00762-DLB; 1:14-cv-00041-AWI-SAB) and the rest have been closed. (case numbers: 1:13cv-00726-LJO-DLB; 1:13-cv-00761-MJS; 1:13-cv-01056-AWI-BAM; 1:13-cv-01078-LJO-MJS; 1:13-cv-01511-AWIMJS; 1:13-cv-01736-AWI-MJS; 1:13-cv-01755-MJS; 1:14-cv-00042-AWI-JLT; 1:14-cv-00274-LJO-GSA; 1:14-cv00275-LJO-MJS; 1:14-cv-00278-AWI-SAB; 1:14-cv-00351-LJO-SAB; 1:14-cv-00361-AWI-GSA; 1:14-cv-00748-DLB;
1:14-cv-00874-AWI-BAM; 1:14-cv-00905-AWI-GSA; 1:14-cv-01439-AWI-SKO; 1:14-cv-01560-LJO-MJS; 1:15-cv00344-AWI-DLB; 1:15-cv-01181-AWI-GSA; 1:15-cv-01182-LJO-GSA; 1:15-cv-01245-LJO-DLB; 2:13-cv-02212-CKD;
2:13-cv-02214-AC; 2:15-cv-00024-EFB; 2:15-cv-00025-MCE-AC; 1:15-cv-01245-LJO-DLB.) Hence, it can hardly be
argued that Petitioner has not had fair access to the federal courts while incarcerated.
4
1
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the Objections shall be
2
served and filed within ten days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the Objections.
3
The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The
4
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal
5
the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
6
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 29, 2015
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?