Perales v. United States

Full title: AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Aug 25, 2010

SACV 10-1250 JVS (AGR) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2010)

Opinion

AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Respondents. No. SACV 10-1250 JVS (AGR). United States District Court, C.D. California. August 25, 2010.

          OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

          JAMES V. SELNA, District Judge.

         On August 17, 2010, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed an "Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus" ("Petition"). Although captioned as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, it plainly appears from the face of the Petition that this Court does not have habeas jurisdiction. Petitioner is not incarcerated or in custody. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c), 2254(a). Petitioner does not challenge a judgment, conviction, or sentence. Id. He meets none of the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). Instead, the Petition, which names the United States, President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and an assortment of other governmental figures, is virtually unintelligible.¹ See, e.g., Perales v. Cochran Law Firm, Case No. SACV 10-1138 JVS (AGR) (C.D. Cal. 2010); Perales v. Apex Building Maintenance, Case No. CV 10-16-UA-DUTY (C.D. Cal. 2010), Dkt. No. 2 (order denying leave to file action without prepayment of filing fee and collecting previous denials).²

1 Without explanation, Petitioner refers to and attaches exhibits related to a case before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. (Petition at 2 & Exhibits.)

2 See also Perales v. Wilshire Restaurant Group, Case No. SACV 09-1255-UA-DUTY (C.D. Cal. 2009).

         A petition for writ of habeas corpus is subject to summary dismissal when it plainly appears on the face of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Cf. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States Courts ("[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition... that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, " judge must dismiss petition and direct clerk to notify petitioner); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

         Summary dismissal is appropriate here because there is no basis for habeas jurisdiction. The Petition is not cognizable under habeas and is frivolous. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 669-70, 125 S.Ct. 2562, 162 L.Ed.2d 582 (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").

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing the petition.