Opinion
NO: 4:18-CV-5043-TOR
07-11-2018
LEOPOLDO CARDENAS, Petitioner, v. ROBERT INGVALSON, ANDY MILLER, TERRY BLOOR and LARRY ZEIGLER, Respondents.
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH PREJUDICE
By Order filed April 30, 2018, the Court advised Petitioner of the deficiencies of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and directed him to amend. Petitioner, a prisoner at the Washington State Penitentiary, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. The named Respondents have not been served.
Specifically, the Court directed Petitioner to limit his petition to challenging the judgment or judgments of a single state court as required by Rule 2(3) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; to show that he is "in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court" as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), see Lackawanna Cty. Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 401 (2001); to name his custodian as the proper Respondent, see Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004); and to demonstrate that his petition is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner did not comply with the Court's directives and has filed nothing further.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth above and in the Order to Amend Petition, ECF No. 5, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition, ECF No. 6, is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction over the named Respondents, for want of custody, and as untimely under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner, and close the file. The Court certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R.App. P. 22(b).
DATED July 11, 2018.
/s/
THOMAS O. RICE
Chief United States District Judge