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)

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