Nelson v. Neal

Filing 31

ORDER Denying Request for Ex Parte Evidentiary Hearing. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 10/11/2011. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/11/2011: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (nah, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 DAVID J. NELSON, Plaintiff, 8 9 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EX PARTE EVIDENTIARY HEARING ROBERT DAVID NEAL, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C 09-5162 PJH Defendant. _______________________________/ 12 13 The court is in receipt of an “post-judgment, request for ex parte evidentiary hearing” 14 filed by plaintiff David J. Nelson to establish “final habeas corpus affirming judgment in this 15 instant case.” Doc. no. 30. Plaintiff represents that he is in the custody of the Federal 16 Bureau of Prisons and claims that he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to a 17 settlement agreement which was executed by senior BOP officials. Plaintiff contends that 18 the judgment entered by this court ordered the BOP officials “to terminate their custody of 19 my person which you referenced as ‘chattel.’” Plaintiff further asks the court to document 20 his entitlement rights, presumably to habeas relief, for enforcement by the District Court for 21 the Southern District of Indiana. 22 Having reviewed the record and the orders of the District Court for the Southern 23 District of Indiana in the matters to which Plaintiff refers, the court determines that plaintiff 24 Nelson may be the same person as defendant Robert David Neal, and that Mr. Nelson, or 25 Mr. Neal, did not disclose to the court that he was in custody at the time he sought 26 judgment from this court, or that he was referring to himself as “Chattel.” Notwithstanding 27 these indications that the judgment in favor of Mr. Nelson and against his alias, Mr. Neal, 28 was entered as a result of fraud upon the court, the judgment, even if valid, would not be 1 binding upon any parties other than Mr. Nelson or Mr. Neal and would not result in Mr. 2 Nelson or Mr. Neal’s release on the ground that he is “chattel.” To the extent that Mr. 3 Nelson or Mr. Neal seeks release from federal custody, he must do so pursuant to the 4 procedures governing habeas corpus relief. 5 Plaintiff’s request for ex parte evidentiary hearing is DENIED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: October 11, 2011 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?