Grandinetti v. Rich International Airlines et al

Filing 4

DISMISSAL ORDER - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 4/15/13. "To the extent Petitioner seeks in forma pauperis status, it is DENIED and the Petition is DISMISSED without leave to amend." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Francis Anthony Grandinetti II shall be served by first class mail at the address of record on April 16, 2013.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

FRANCIS ANTHONY GRANDINETTI,
II, #A0185087,

)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
vs.
)
)
)
RICH INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS,
)
et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
_____________________________ )

CIV. NO. 13-00169 SOM/RLP
DISMISSAL ORDER

DISMISSAL ORDER
Petitioner Francis Anthony Grandinetti, II, who is
confined in the Saguaro Correctional Center (“SCC”), has filed a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner appears to again challenge

his transfer to an out-of-state facility in 1995, a claim he has
pursued numerous times.

See e.g., Civ. Nos. 13-00666 JMS; 13-

00005 SOM; 13-00010 SOM; 13-00039 LEK; 13-00103 JMS.
The Petition is largely incoherent.

Petitioner alleges

that Rich International Airways transported him from Hawaii to
another state in 1995, although the “correct airliner is United
Airlines from New York (1970).”

Pet. ECF No. 1 PageID #2.

Petitioner labels this a deportation and a “Bivens arrest” by the
airlines and its employees.

Id.

Petitioner also says this was

an “‘Endo style’ internship and exile” and asserts that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is unlawful.

Id.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under
Section 2254 states that a district judge “must dismiss” a habeas
petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.”
Summary dismissal is appropriate when the petition is “patently
frivolous or false.”

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491

(9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 76
(1977)).
Here, the Petition is patently frivolous; the court
must therefore dismiss it.

See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644,

669-70 (2005) (“the purpose of the heightened pleading standard
in habeas cases is to help a district court weed out frivolous
petitions before calling upon the State to answer”).

Moreover,

because the court dismissed as time-barred an earlier habeas
petition by Petitioner, see Civ. No. 05-00254 DAE, and the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability,
this Petition may be second or successive, and Petitioner may
need permission from the Ninth Circuit to file it.

See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1273–74 (9th Cir.
2001).

Petitioner provides no evidence that he has sought or

received such permission, or that the present matter could not
have been included in the earlier case or involves a separate

2

conviction.

To the extent Petitioner seeks in forma pauperis

status, it is DENIED and the Petition is DISMISSED without leave
to amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 15, 2013.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge

Grandinetti v. Rich Int’l Airlines, 1:13-cv-00169 SOM/RLP; G:\docs\joni\000
CMECF.emailed for filing\2013 emailed for filing\04.15
friv no lv amd).wpd

3

Grandinetti 13-169 som (dsm