Allah v. Washington Supreme Court et al

Filing 11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler. Show Cause Response due by 6/9/2017. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Allah, Prisoner ID: 950376)(ST)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 ALLAH, Petitioner, 9 10 Case No. C17-0458-RSM-MAT v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 Petitioner Allah is a state prisoner who is currently confined at the Washington State 15 Penitentiary in Walla Walla, Washington. He has submitted to the Court for filing a pleading 16 which he identifies as a petition for writ of mandamus, but which the Court construes as a petition 17 for writ of habeas corpus because petitioner seeks to challenge therein the validity of a 2002 18 judgment of the King County Superior Court (Case No. 02-1-02047-6). (See Dkt. 1.) Petitioner 19 appears to claim in his petition that the 2002 judgment is invalid because it does not name 20 “Allah©” as the defendant. (See id. at 7-8.) Petitioner appears to further claim that the Washington 21 Department of Corrections has no records whatsoever naming “Allah©” as a defendant and his 22 current confinement is therefore unlawful. (See id.) Petitioner asks that this Court compel the 23 judges of the Washington Supreme Court and the Washington Court of Appeals, Divisions I and ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PAGE - 1 1 III, to dismiss the 2002 King County case “for lack of jurisdiction and malicious prosecution.” 2 (Dkt. 1 at 4.) Petitioner also seeks compensation in the amount of $50,000 for his alleged unlawful 3 confinement, an unlimited hotel voucher for the Four Seasons Olympic Hotel in Seattle, immediate 4 release from the Washington State Penitentiary, and taxi fare back to Seattle. (See id.) 5 Petitioner is a frequent litigant in this Court who has repeatedly attempted to challenge 6 various state court judgments, including the 2002 King County Superior Court judgment at issue 7 in this action. See Allah v. Frakes, C12-484-TSZ, Allah v. Robinson, C14-1234-TSZ, and Allah 8 v. Holbrook, C16-535-RSL. Petitioner’s challenges to his 2002 judgment have previously been 9 rejected because of his failure to clearly identify the federal constitutional grounds upon which he 10 was seeking relief from the judgement, and his failure to show that the claims pertaining to his 11 2002 judgment had been properly exhausted in the state courts. See id. The instant petition is 12 similarly deficient. 13 While petitioner identifies in his petition a number of constitutional amendments that he 14 appears to believe support his request for release from custody (see Dkt. 1 at 3), he has yet to 15 clearly articulate a viable constitutional claim, and he has yet to show that any constitutional claims 16 pertaining to his 2002 judgment have been properly exhausted in the state courts.1 In addition, it 17 appears clear that even if petitioner had presented a viable claim for relief in the instant petition, 18 another impediment stands in his way of obtaining review in this Court; i.e., the federal statute of 19 limitations. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), a one year statute of limitations applies to any 20 21 22 23 1 Petitioner submitted materials in conjunction with the instant petition which suggest that he recently attempted to appeal his 2002 judgment to the Washington Court of Appeals. (See Dkt. 1 at 16.) However, the appeal was rejected because petitioner’s submission was procedurally deficient and because his notice of appeal was filed “approximately 15 years beyond the 30 day time limit.” (See Dkt. 1 at 16.) Nothing in the record provided by petitioner suggests any proper exhaustion of state court remedies. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PAGE - 2 1 application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a 2 state court. Though it is not entirely clear when petitioner’s 2002 state court judgment became 3 final, the materials in the record before this Court suggest that it was approximately 15 years ago, 4 well beyond the statutory limitations period. 5 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 6 (1) 7 8 9 10 Petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE not later than June 9, 2017 why the instant federal habeas petition should not be dismissed as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). (2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner and to the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez. DATED this 9th day of May, 2017. 11 A 12 Mary Alice Theiler United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PAGE - 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?