Perales v. TrueBlue, Inc. et al

Filing 9

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Terence Kern Dismissing Complaint (Doc. 2) with prejudice ; dismissing/terminating case (terminates case) ; dismissing 6 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241/2254) (vah, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
TRUEBLUE, INC., d/b/a/ Labor Ready,
)
Inc., et al., Robert J. (Bob) Sullivan,
)
Chairman, and Steve Cooper, CEO and Dir.;)
LABOR READY FULLERTON, et al.,
)
Mr. Steve Smith, Ms. Maria Arellano,
)
Bobbie Doe and Jessie Doe;
)
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
)
et al., U.S. Dir. -- Mr. Leon Panetta;
)
FED. BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
)
et al., U.S. Dir. -- Mr. Robert S. Mueller, III; )
FED. BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION/
)
U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, et al.;
)
U.S. DEP’T OF LABOR, et al.,
)
U.S. Secretary of Labor - Ms. Hilda L. Solis, )
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 12-CV-097-TCK-FHM

OPINION AND ORDER
On February 24, 2012, Plaintiff, appearing pro se, commenced this action by filing a
complaint (Dkt. # 2), a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. # 4), and a 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 6). Plaintiff states that he is homeless, and provides a
return mailing address of P.O. Box 501, Fullerton, CA 92836. By minute order filed March 9, 2012
(Dkt. # 8), the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice to
refiling a complete form. The Court’s record reflects that on March 19, 2012, the copy of the minute
order mailed to Plaintiff was returned, marked “postmaster return to sender -- mail fraud.”

To date, the Court has received no further correspondence from Plaintiff. Without a valid
return address, the Court is unable to communicate with Plaintiff. Therefore, this action is subject
to dismissal for lack of prosecution. Furthermore, for the reasons discussed below, the complaint
shall be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and the petition for writ of habeas corpus shall be
dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
A. Claims raised in the complaint are frivolous
The Court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim if “it is ‘patently obvious’ that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged, and
allowing him an opportunity to amend his complaint would be futile.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting McKinney v. Okla. Dep’t of Human Servs., 925 F.2d 363, 365
(10th Cir. 1991)). A plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In reviewing Plaintiff’s pro se
complaint, the Court applies the same legal standards applicable to pleadings that counsel drafts, but
liberally construes the allegations. See Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1520-21 (10th Cir.
1992).
Plaintiff’s complaint is, in large part, unintelligible. Significantly, all of the incidents
complained of occurred in California. Plaintiff does not allege that any action giving rise to the
complaint occurred in Oklahoma. Plaintiff makes numerous unsupported allegations. For example,
he claims that he has “been denied equal pay relating to my experience, education,” see Dkt. # 2 at
4, and that Defendants “are guilty of conspiracy and obstruction of justice” id. at 25. In his request
for relief, Plaintiff asks for three billion dollars. Id. at 26. Much of the one-hundred page complaint
consists of a list of the District Attorney Offices in California and copies of pleadings filed in other

2

court actions. Even giving Plaintiff’s complaint the liberal construction it is due given his pro se
status, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), Plaintiff’s allegations are clearly baseless
and wholly implausible. The Court further finds that to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his
complaint would be futile. Therefore, the complaint shall be dismissed as frivolous and for failure
to state a claim.
B. Court lacks jurisdiction to consider habeas relief
Plaintiff also filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition (Dkt. # 6). It is clear, however,
that the Court lacks jurisdiction over any claim asserted under the habeas corpus statutes. First,
Plaintiff fails to allege or demonstrate that he is in custody as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c).
“The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody,
and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” See Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973); see also Rhodes v. Hannigan, 12 F.3d 989, 991 (10th Cir.
1993) (“A petition for habeas corpus attacks the fact or duration of a prisoner’s confinement and
seeks the remedy of immediate release or a shortened period of confinement.”). Because there is
no indication that Plaintiff is in custody, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider any habeas corpus
claims. The Court further notes that Plaintiff has filed a number of habeas corpus actions in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California that also have been dismissed
summarily because he is not in custody. See Perales v. United States, No. SACV 11-201 JVS
(AGR), 2011 WL 684195 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011); Perales v. Dollar Tree Inc., No. SACV 10-1772
JVS (AGR), 2010 WL 4923090 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2010); Perales v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, No.
SACV 10-1737 JVS (AGR), 2010 WL 4923041 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2010); Perales v. United States,
No. SACV 10-1250 JVS (AGR), 2010 WL 3397033 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2010).

3

The Court also lacks habeas jurisdiction because, even if Plaintiff is in custody, he fails to
allege or demonstrate that he is in custody in the Northern District of Oklahoma. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241(a), “[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by the . . . district courts . . . within their
respective jurisdictions.” As a result, an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241
“must be filed in the district where the prisoner is confined.” Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166
(10th Cir. 1996). There is no indication that Plaintiff is confined or otherwise in custody in the
Northern District of Oklahoma. Instead, based on the address provided by Plaintiff, he is apparently
a resident of California. As a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus in
this action. For that reason, the petition shall be dismissed without prejudice.
C. Admonishment to Plaintiff
To date, Plaintiff has filed eighty-five actions in district courts and federal courts of appeal
around the country, many of which have been dismissed sua sponte as frivolous. See, e.g., Perales
v. Obama, No. 11 Civ. 1678 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011) (dismissing as “legally and/or factually
patently frivolous”); Perales v. BP et al., No. 11 Civ. 22833 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 2, 2011) (dismissing
“due to the lack of factual allegations”); Perales v. The United States, No. 11 Civ. 91 (Ct. Cl. Feb.
17, 2011) (dismissing allegations “that a traffic light camera constitutes a weapon of mass
destruction” as frivolous). In light of that history of filing frivolous lawsuits, Plaintiff is warned that
further frivolous litigation in this Court will result in an order barring Plaintiff from filing new
actions without prior permission.

4

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. # 2) is
dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim and as frivolous. The 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition
for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 6) is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. This
is a final order terminating this action.

DATED THIS 4th day of May, 2012.

_________________________________________
TERENCE C. KERN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5