Opinion
CV 21-5866 MWF (MRW)
07-22-2021
URIEL MERCADO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent.
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING HABEAS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court dismisses Petitioner's defective state habeas action without prejudice.
Petitioner is an inmate at the state prison in Susanville, California. He initiated this action in federal district court to seek review of a recent adverse decision of the Supreme Court of California. (Docket # 1.)
Petitioner's case-commencing pleading is entitled “notice of appeal” from the state supreme court. (Docket # 1.) This federal court does not hear appeals from the state court system. However, the Clerk's Office construed the submission to be habeas corpus petition from a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. That appears to be a fair and proper determination. A review of the state supreme court's online docket reveals that the Petitioner's recent habeas action in the state court system was recently denied without comment. (In re Mercado, No. S268209 (Cal. June 23, 2021) (accessed via www.appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov).)
However, Petitioner does not have an active case or habeas petition on file in this district. Further, Petitioner's documentation does not contain any information regarding his criminal case or the claims of federal constitutional error he wishes to assert in federal court.
If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled” to habeas relief, a court may dismiss a habeas action without ordering service on the responding party. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; see also Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts (petition may be summarily dismissed if petitioner plainly not entitled to relief); Local Civil Rule 72-3.2 (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for summary dismissal to district judge “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition [ ] that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”).
A state prisoner must begin his case by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Habeas Rule 2(d) expressly requires that a state prisoner use a standard form petition prepared by the Court. In our district, prisoners must complete Form CV-69. That form provides the Court with basic information about the petitioner, his conviction, the prior status of his case in state and federal court, and, most importantly, the federal constitutional claims he wishes to pursue here.
Petitioner failed to comply with the federal rule governing the commencement of a habeas action. Petitioner did not use Form CV-69, and did not provide any of the information required to identify and adjudicate Petitioner's claims. Petitioner's “notice of appeal” - even if construed as a request for habeas consideration - is clearly inadequate on its face.
Therefore, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. For Petitioner's convenience, the Clerk is directed to send him a blank Form CV-69 with a copy of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE