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).

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