Schenck v. Spearman

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND TERMINATING ALL PENDING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/19/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2013) Modified on 3/19/2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 RYKER WILLIAM SCHENCK, 4 Case Nos.: 12-6396 CW (PR) 13-0384 CW (PR) Petitioner, 5 v. 6 MARIN SUPERIOR COURT, et al., ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND TERMINATING ALL PENDING MOTIONS 7 Respondents. 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California Since January 1, 2011, Ryker Schenck, a California state 11 prisoner, has filed six pro se actions in this court challenging 12 the validity of his criminal conviction or seeking relief from a 13 judgment entered in a civil action he brought in Marin County 14 Superior Court. Often, Schenck has raised both types of claims in 15 the same case, as he does in the present cases. All of the prior 16 cases have been dismissed prior to service. See 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915A. 18 The orders reviewing those cases have explained in detail why Schenck’s habeas and civil claims are not cognizable.1 19 The two cases the Court reviews in this Order are captioned 20 as habeas corpus petitions but contain both habeas and civil 21 rights claims. The cases appear to be identical; they seek 22 Schenck’s release from custody as well as equitable relief and 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 See Schenck v. People of the State of California, C 110448 CW (PR) (order of dismissal filed Sept. 7, 2011); Schenck v. People of the State of California, C 11-0449 CW (order of dismissal filed Mar. 21, 2011); Schenck v. Brown, C 11-2502 SI (PR) (order of dismissal filed Dec. 23, 2011); Schenck v. Superior Court, C 12-4422 CW (PR) (order of dismissal filed Aug. 31, 2012). 1 damages for alleged erroneous rulings in the civil case he brought 2 in Marin County Superior Court. 3 It is clear from the face of the petition that Schenck’s habeas claim for early release from state custody because of the 5 alleged miscalculation of custody credits has not been exhausted 6 by presentation of the claim to the California Supreme Court. 7 Accordingly, the claim is DISMISSED without prejudice. 8 v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515 (1982). 9 that the Court notify him of any outstanding federal criminal 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 4 charges and bring him to trial on such charges is not properly 11 before this Court. 12 with the requirements of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers 13 Act, 18 U.S.C. App. II. 14 See Rose Further, Schenck’s request Any such request must be made in accordance Additionally, Schenck’s equitable relief and damages claims 15 concerning his civil case in Marin County Superior Court are 16 duplicative of the claims raised in his prior actions that have 17 been dismissed. 18 claims when the complaint or claims are duplicative of claims 19 brought in another case. 20 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding in forma pauperis complaint that 21 merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be 22 considered abusive and dismissed); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) 23 (allowing district courts to dismiss sua sponte prisoner actions 24 that are frivolous). 25 DISMISSED without prejudice. 26 27 28 A court may dismiss a complaint or individual See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, Accordingly, these duplicative claims are Based on the above, both of Schenck’s pending cases are DISMISSED without prejudice. // 2 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 3 1. 4 The two cases addressed in this Order are DISMISSED without prejudice. 5 2. 6 The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions in 7 8 9 Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. both cases, enter judgment and close the files. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3/19/2013 ________________________ CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?