The opinion of the court was delivered by: Andrew J. Guilford United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DISMISSING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Pro se petitioner, who styles himself as his majesty Czar Pierre 4th of Romania and Russia, is in state custody at the Patton State Hospital and has filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. ["Petition", docket no. 1.] For the following reasons, the Petition is subject to dismissal without prejudice:
Petitioner alleges five essentially incomprehensible grounds for habeas relief.*fn1 [See Petition, Docket no. 1 at 5-6.] It is impossible to discern the nature of his custody, he does not name a proper respondent*fn2 , and he does not claim he is in custody in violation of any specific federal constitutional guarantee.*fn3
Furthermore, Petitioner states that he did not file an appeal or habeas petition challenging his custody in state court, but merely wrote a letter to the Attorney General with respect to his allegations. [See Pet. at 3.] The California Appellate Courts case information web page confirms that no one named Pierre Randall has filed an appeal or petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California courts of appeal. [See http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/.]
Summary dismissal of a federal habeas petition is appropriate when, as here, the allegations of the petition are "vague [or] conclusory," "palpably incredible," or "patently frivolous or false." Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (listing cases). See also Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any annexed exhibits that petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall make an order for summary dismissal); Local Civil Rule 72-3.2 (authorizing magistrate judge to prepare proposed order and judgment for district judge if it plainly appears from face of petition that petitioner is not entitled to relief).
Summary dismissal is likewise appropriate when a petition is facially and completely unexhausted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b) (1996) (a state prisoner must exhaust state court remedies before petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court). See also Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4; Local Civil Rule 72-3.2. It appears from the face of this petition that Petitioner has entirely failed to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S. Ct. 887, 130 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1995)(per curiam); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29, 124 S. Ct. 1347, 158 L. Ed. 2d 64 (2004) (to exhaust, a petitioner must fairly present all federal grounds for relief "in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the federal nature of [his grounds].")
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to petitioner's filing a comprehensible, fully exhausted petition which states the operative facts and the applicable federal legal theory in support of his grounds.*fn4
Presented by: Dated: September 22, 2011
Carla M. Woehrle United States ...