The opinion of the court was delivered by: Margaret M. Morrow United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
On January 11, 2012, 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: probable cause is lacking to pen [sic] another charge Fourth Amend. Theirs [sic] no probable cause and Sixth Amendment attorneys not arguing, while under custody gives the Sheriff Dept to give added charges....
Ground two: These impression from the Doctor L. Muto, is because Alford on parole. Because petitioner is on parole at the time of arrest that he is denied the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection of Law.
Ground three: Doctor L. Muto Psychologist have expressed his fear for going back to Jail. Staying at the Patton State Hospital have given Alford every opportunity to deal with psychological problem working with both Dr. Loren C. King el [sic] Dr. L. Muto.
Ground four: Both attorney consulting Dr. L. Muto and Dr. Loren C. King psychologist. After talking with Dr. Loren C. King we agree-ed to me talking with Dr. L. Muto, in which myself and Dr. Muto have been talking each week over the laws and how to work with the two attorneys.
Ground five: Granting both Dr. Loren C. King and Dr. L. Muto to talk with both attorneys. Petitioner it should be clear that Sheriff Deputies R. Tweedy and S. Crosby stopped petitioner Alford for identification in S. Crosby report which do not state probably cause. [Petition at 5-6 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 grounds for federal habeas corpus relief.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
RICKEY LOUIS ALFORD, Petitioner, v. OCTAVIO C. LUNA, PATTON STATE ...