Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Perales v. Cochran Law Firm

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 9, 2010

AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES, PETITIONER,
v.
COCHRAN LAW FIRM, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: James V. Selna United States District Judge

OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

On July 12, 2010, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") in the Eastern District of California. On July 22, 2010, the Eastern District transferred the case to the Central District of California.

Although the Petition is captioned as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, it plainly appears on 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, Petitioner's pleading consists of 31 pages of incomprehensible, frivolous allegations and another 100 pages of attachments. Petitioner has filed at least six prior civil complaints, which were dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See, e.g., Perales v. Apex Building Maintenance, Case No. CV 10-16, Dkt. No. 2 (order denying leave to file action without prepayment of filing fee and collecting previous denials).*fn1

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 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 habeas petition.

ALICIA G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.