The opinion of the court was delivered by: Margaret M. Morrow United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
On November 15, 2011, petitioner filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus.*fn1 For the following reasons, the petition is subject to summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
To begin with, the Court cannot discern the factual or legal basis for petitioner's claims. Petitioner's allegations are nearly impossible to decipher. For example, petitioner alleges the following as grounds for relief:
Ground one: Because Alford filed on the two cars at Alford mother home being totaled out in three days a part, two cars were totaled out deliberately by two informants or gents of the Sheriff Dept, and because Alford mentioned the two incidents after contacting Progressive Insurance Company in another Habeas Corpus that eventually went to the Federal Court... The District Attorney Office has conspired with the Sheriff Dept using Patton State Hospital.
Ground two: When Alford wrote to Legislature members was contacted. After U.S. Marshals, Sheriff Dept, Mental Health and Parole Agent Rodney McElvaine visited Alford explaining how the two cars were totaled out and that were mentioned throughout Alford v. Haws, CV 09-7564, and about two weeks pasted [sic] and Sheriff Deputies ... arrested Alford under false imprisonment, made false statement, staged an incident April 21, 2010 and while going to court, more Sheriff Dept Deputies staged another charge of Penal Code sec 422. Ground three: Patton State hospital Director, Octavio C. Luna have been harassed by the D.A. Office....
Ground four: Prosecution misconduct using as a threat against the conference team. Dr. Marquez, Dr. Parks, and Sarah Jones (SW) are ordered not to write a report that [petitioner] is competent to stand trial, and have called on a forensic expert to get past the Director, Octavia C. Luna.
[Petition at 3-4 and attached pages].
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition ...." Summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4 is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are "vague or conclusory," "palpably incredible," or "patently frivolous or false." Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). As pleaded, the petition filed in this case is subject to summary dismissal because the allegations are vague, incredible, and frivolous. See generally O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990) (explaining that "notice pleading is not sufficient," and that the petition must state facts pointing to a "real possibility of constitutional error")(quoting Blackledge, 431 U.S. at 75 n. 7), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1096 (1991).
Furthermore, to the extent that petitioner's allegations are comprehensible, they do not appear to be related to the constitutional validity of a specific conviction or sentence. Therefore, these allegations cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas relief. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-499 (1973) (explaining that habeas corpus proceedings are the proper and exclusive mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 858-859 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that where a petitioner's claims, even if successful, would not shorten the duration of his custody, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §2254 is absent), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1063 (2004).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed without prejudice to petitioner's ability to file a petition properly alleging intelligible ...