Robinson v. Obama et al

Filing 4

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The clerk of court shall enter final judgment accordingly, in favor of respondents and against petitioner, dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/1/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8

SCOTT ROBINSON,
Petitioner,

9
10

2:16-cv-01068-JCM-VCF
ORDER

vs.
11
12

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

This action brought as a habeas matter comes before the court for initial review.

16

Petitioner Scott Robinson alleges that his freedom is being compromised due to being

17

a forced human research subject via frequency technology operated through a satellite

18

network pursuant to a federal government program. Petitioner lists a post office box in

19

Antioch, California as his address for correspondence in this matter; the area codes for the

20

telephone numbers listed in his attachments also are in California; and other references in

21

his papers also place him in California. He names as respondents President Barack Obama

22

and Jared Cooney Horvath, who is alleged to be a program employee and administrator.

23

Attachments submitted with the petition assert that the alleged program in question “is being

24

ran by administrators within the Horvath family, of Chester County, Pennsylvania.”1

25

Even putting the fanciful nature of the allegations aside, it is clear that this court does

26

not have jurisdiction over the petition. The proper respondent in a federal habeas matter is

27
28

1

ECF No. 1, at 13.

1

the petitioner’s immediate custodian, not some remote supervisory official such as the

2

president or an alleged program administrator. See, e.g., Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,

3

435-36 (2004). Moreover, only the court for the district in which the petitioner is held in

4

custody by a properly-named respondent has jurisdiction over the petition. Id. at 442-47.

5

Even if this court were to indulge in a highly dubious assumption that petitioner is in custody

6

for purposes of federal habeas jurisdiction, it is abundantly clear that he is not in custody in

7

this district.

8

The petition therefore will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

9

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for

10

lack of jurisdiction.

11

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Jurists of

12

reason would not find the district court’s dismissal of the petition for lack of jurisdiction to be

13

debatable or wrong. The invocation of federal habeas jurisdiction in this district is wholly

14

frivolous, as is the action itself.

15
16
17

The clerk of court shall enter final judgment accordingly, in favor of respondents and
against petitioner, dismissing this action without prejudice.
DATED: December 1, 2016.

18
19
20
21

_________________________________
JAMES C. MAHAN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-