Cevallos v. Cate
Filing
24
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/24/14 ordering petitioner' first amended petition is summarily dismissed. Petitioner's 03/13/13 motion for separation from superior court room County of Glenn 19 is denied. Petitioner 's 05/10/13 motion to preserve information 21 is denied. Petitioner's 05/31/13 motion to make respondent respond to petitioner 22 is denied. Petitioner's 07/12/13 motion to recuse magistrate judge 23 is denied. The clerk of th e court is directed to serve a copy of the amended petition filed in this case together with a copy of this order on the Attorney General of the State of California and to close this action. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. (cc: Michael Farrell, Attorney General) (Plummer, M) (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL ANTHONY CEVALLOS,
12
13
No. 2:12-cv-01433 DAD P
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
14
RED BLUFF PAROLE UNIT,
15
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner, who appears to be on parole, has filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas
18
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has also consented to Magistrate Judge
19
jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (See ECF No. 4.)
20
I. First Amended Petition
21
On March 13, 2013, the court issued an order directing petitioner to file an amended
22
petition because the claims and allegations set forth in his original habeas petition were in large
23
part incomprehensible and difficult to decipher. It appeared from those allegations, however, that
24
petitioner sought to challenge a judgment of conviction entered against him in 2010 for making a
25
criminal threat in violation of California Penal Code § 422, with a hate crime sentencing
26
enhancement imposed pursuant to California Penal Code § 422.75(a). In the March 13, 2013
27
order petitioner was advised of the requirements for the stating of a claim cognizable in a federal
28
habeas action and was warned that the court would summarily dismiss his amended petition “[i]f
1
1
it plainly appears on the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]”
2
(ECF No. 18 at 3) (quoting Rule 4, Rules Governing §2254 Cases).
3
On April 2, 2013, petitioner filed an amended petition for federal habeas relief. (Doc. No.
4
20). Unfortunately, the allegations set forth in that petition are as incomprehensible as those set
5
forth by petitioner in his original petition. For example, in his amended petition petitioner
6
presents eight grounds for relief, beginning with the first two as follows:
7
Ground one: I’m testifying that the prosecution, my Court
appointed council [sic] and the judge surrendered a justice system
to reclassify a purpose of processing information in a Court Rm.
8
9
10
Ground two: As a realized responsibility the purpose of this
corrupted cooperation was governmentally interacted to transfer
Authority to a blended in capitalistic environment undetected[.]
11
(ECF No. 20 at 4.) The remaining six grounds for relief stated in the amended petition are just as
12
nonsensical as the first two. Therefore, based on the allegations of the amended petition and
13
exhibits attached thereto, the court finds that petitioner is clearly not entitled to federal habeas
14
relief and that his amended petition should be summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the
15
Rules Governing §2254 Cases.
16
II. Other Matters Pending Before the Court
17
Because petitioner had inundated this court with motions following the filing of his
18
original petition, in the court in its order of March 13, 2013 had directed petitioner to file no
19
additional motions until the court had reviewed his amended petition and issued an order
20
directing respondent to respond thereto. Nonetheless, petitioner has filed four additional motions
21
with the court which will be addressed below.
On March 13, 2013, petitioner filed a motion “for a separation from the Superior Court
22
23
Room County of Glenn.” (ECF No. 19 at 1.) On May 10, 2013, petitioner filed a motion styled
24
as a, “Motion To Preserve This Information.” (ECF No. 21.) On May 31, 2013, petitioner filed a
25
motion styled as a “Motion To Make Respondent Respond To Petitioner.” Each of these motions
26
will be denied both as incomprehensible and as having been rendered moot by the court’s
27
summary dismissal of the amended petition.
28
/////
2
1
Petitioner’s fourth motion, filed on July 12, 2013, is styled as a “Motion To Recuse
2
Magistrate Judge Official Of This Case.” (ECF No. 23.) As best the court can determine, it
3
appears that in that motion petitioner is expressing a belief that he has received “prejudicial
4
treatment” in this action, although the basis for petitioner’s contention in this regard is unclear at
5
best. (ECF No. 23 at 1.) Petitioner’s motion to recuse will also be denied. Under 28 U.S.C. §
6
144, a party who believes “that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias
7
or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party” must provide an affidavit setting
8
out the following:
9
10
11
12
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that
bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days
before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be
heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such
time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall
be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it
is made in good faith.
13
28 U.S.C. § 144. Petitioner has not complied with the requirements of § 144 by providing a
14
proper and timely affidavit. Moreover, it appears that petitioner is seeking the undersigned’s
15
recusal because of the court’s rulings in this action. However, as the United States Supreme
16
Court has noted, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or
17
partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Instead, the judicial
18
rulings are a basis for appeal, not recusal. Id. (“In and of themselves . . . [judicial rulings] cannot
19
possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest circumstances
20
evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required . . . when no extrajudicial source is
21
involved. Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.”); Leslie v.
22
Gruupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Leslie’s allegations stem entirely from the
23
district judge’s adverse rulings. This is not an adequate basis for recusal.”) (citations omitted).
24
25
26
Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for recusal will also be denied.
III. Certificate of Appealability
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that “[t]he district court
27
must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
28
applicant.” A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can
3
1
demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different
2
court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,
3
290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). For
4
the reasons set forth above, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability in this case.
5
CONCLUSION
6
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
7
1. Petitioner’s first amended petition is summarily dismissed. See Rule 4, Rules
8
Governing §2254 Cases;
2. Petitioner’s March 13, 2013 motion “for separation from superior court room County
9
10
of Glenn” (ECF No. 19) is denied;
11
3. Petitioner’s May 10, 2013 “motion to preserve information” (ECF No. 21) is denied;
12
4. Petitioner’s May 31, 2013 “motion to make respondent respond to petitioner” (ECF
13
No. 22) is denied;
5. Petitioner's July 12, 2013 “motion to recuse the magistrate judge” (ECF No. 23) is
14
15
16
denied;
6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the amended petition filed in this
17
case together with a copy of this order on the Attorney General of the State of California and to
18
close this action; and
19
20
7. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
Dated: January 24, 2014
21
22
23
24
25
DAD:4
ceva1433.summdism
26
27
28
4
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?