Hill v. Lizarraga
Filing
5
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 08/03/16 ORDERING the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the petition filed in this case together with a copy of these findings and recommendations on the Attorney General of the State of California. Also, RECOMMENDING that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed; and the District Court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (cc: Michael Farrell, Attorney General) (Plummer, M) Modified on 8/4/2016 (Plummer, M).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RAYMOND ANTHONY HILL,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:16-cv-01581 JAM GGH P
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER and FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
JOE LIZARRAGA, Warden,
Respondent.
16
17
On July 11, 2016, Petitioner, a prisoner at Mule Creek State Prison, filed a document
18
entitled “Notice of Motion and Motion to Vacate the Attachment of Raymond Anthony Hill.”
19
ECF No. 1. The court docketed the matter as a Petition for Habeas Corpus insofar as Petitioner
20
refers to Respondent Lizarraga as “the custodian of Petitioner, . . .”. Id. at 2:21-22. He avers that
21
he is a “public vessel,” id. at 17, and that “Respondent does not have a valid prima facie admiralty
22
claim to meet the burden of proof to obtain an attachment of Petitioner.” Id. at 3:7-9. He seeks
23
vacation of his attachment. Id. at 3:17. Petitioner has neither sought to proceed in forma
24
pauperis, nor has he paid the required filing fee to take his Claim forward.
25
26
DISCUSSION
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides for
27
summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and
28
any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Here,
1
1
petitioner’s claims are virtually unintelligible and nonsensical. It is plain from the petition and
2
appended exhibits that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. Therefore, the petition
3
should be summarily dismissed.
4
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court must
5
issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. A
6
certificate of appealability may issue only “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
7
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). For the reasons set forth in these
8
findings and recommendations, a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right has
9
not been made in this case.
10
11
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to
12
serve a copy of the petition filed in this case together with a copy of these findings and
13
recommendations on the Attorney General of the State of California.
14
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
15
1. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed; and
16
2. The District Court decline to issue a certificate of appealability.
17
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
18
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days
19
after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
20
objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
21
Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections
22
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.
23
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1991).
24
Dated: August 3, 2016
25
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
26
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
Hill.1581.sumdis.amm
2
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?