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).
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?