Ngenda v. Department of Homeland Security

Filing 7

Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with Leave to Amend. As the Court cannot proceed on the bare and limited allegations provided by Petitioner, his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with leave to amend. Petitio ner is ordered to file an amended petition within 45 days of the date of service of this Order. The amended petition must specify, with particularity, the factual and legal basis for his claims. The amended petition will supersede the original petiti on and should be complete in and of itself and should be clearly labeled "AMENDED PETITION." Failure to file an amended petition will result in the dismissal of this case. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 3/9/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ABDOUL NGENDA,

Case No.: 17-cv-00263-AJB-JLB
Petitioner,

12
13
14

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Respondent.
Presently before the Court is Petitioner Abdoul Ngenda’s petition for writ of habeas
corpus. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner is currently proceeding in forma pauperis. (Doc. Nos. 2,
3.) After setting a briefing schedule on January 10, 2018, Respondent failed to file its
answer to the writ. (Doc. No. 4.) However, despite this, the Court finds that Petitioner has
failed to allege a viable habeas claim. Thus, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. No. 1.)
DISCUSSION
Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus is incredibly brief. (See generally id.) Specifically,
he only states that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated as he is poor, he was
a victim of prejudice based on his Muslim ethnicity, and that he was humiliated by Judge
McSeveney based on his history as an addict. (Doc. No. 1 at 4, 5.) Petitioner then claims
1
17-cv-00263-AJB-JLB

1

that “[r]espect for the integrity of the Person including Freedom . . . was violated on behalf

2

of Judge McSeveney.” (Id. at 6.)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Writs of habeas corpus must not extend to a prisoner unless—
(1) He is in custody under or by color of the authority of the
United States or is committed for trial before some court thereof;
or
(2) He is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an
Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a
court or judge of the United States; or
(3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States; or
(4) He, being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled therein is
in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right,
title, authority . . . the validity and effect of which depend upon
the law of nations; or
(5) It is necessary to bring him into court to testify or for trial.
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1)–(5).

14

In the instant case, Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable claim and does not

15

allege a clear violation of federal law or the Constitution. (See generally Doc. No. 1.)

16

Instead, Petitioner’s incredibly scarce contentions are vague, broad, and devoid of any

17

additional supporting description or supporting facts giving rise to the purported

18

constitutional violation. (Id.) The Court notes that “[i]t is not the duty of federal courts to

19

try to second guess the meanings of statements and intentions of petitioners.” See Huff v.

20

Carey, No. 1:07-cv-01746 AWI SMS (HC), 2008 WL 544360, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28,

21

2008). Thus, while the Court should liberally interpret pro se pleadings, the Court does not

22

have the responsibility to create Petitioner’s claims for him in his case.

23

Accordingly, as Petitioner has failed to state his claim with sufficient specificity, his

24

Petition is DISMISSED. See Wacht v. Cardwell, 604 F.2d 1245, 1246–47 (9th Cir. 1979);

25

see also James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Conclusory allegations which are

26

not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.”); Wirsz v.

27

Sugrue, No. 1:09-cv-01204-BAK-SMS HC, 2009 WL 4931845, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15,

28

2009) (dismissing the petition as it failed to “provide sufficient factual and legal details
2
17-cv-00263-AJB-JLB

1

regarding his claim[.]”).

2

CONCLUSION

3

As the Court cannot proceed on the bare and limited allegations provided by

4

Petitioner, his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE

5

TO AMEND. Petitioner is ORDERED to file an amended petition within forty-five (45)

6

days of the date of service of this Order. The amended petition must specify, with

7

particularity, the factual and legal basis for his claims. The amended petition will supersede

8

the original petition and should be complete in and of itself and should be clearly labeled

9

“AMENDED PETITION.” Failure to file an amended petition will result in the dismissal

10

of this case.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: March 9, 2018

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17-cv-00263-AJB-JLB