United States District Court, C.D. California
Jim Ryan P. Ada
Federal Board of Investigations
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES
(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be
3, 2017, Carmelita P. Ada, purportedly on behalf of her son,
Petitioner Jim Ryan P. Ada, filed a “Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody.” ECF
Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. For the reasons set forth
below, the Petition appears subject to dismissal. The Court
will not make a final determination regarding whether the
federal Petition should be dismissed, however, without giving
Petitioner an opportunity to address these issues.
the Court hereby issues this Order to Show Cause why the
Petition should not be dismissed, and specifically orders
Petitioner to respond to the Order to Show Cause in writing
no later than August 14, 2017. The Court further directs
Petitioner to review the information that follows, which
provides additional explanation as to why the federal
Petition appears to be subject to dismissal and may assist
Petitioner in determining how to respond.
PETITION IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL BECAUSE IT IS NOT SIGNED BY
Jim Ryan P. Ada did not sign the Petition. The district court
may dismiss or refuse to file a petition that is unsigned or
unverified by the petitioner. See Hendricks v.
Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990); Application
of Gibson, 218 F.2d 320 (9th Cir. 1954), cert
denied, 348 U.S. 955 (1955).
mother, Carmelita P. Ada, purports to bring this action
pro se on behalf of Petitioner. Petitioner's
mother may not do so. A non-lawyer may not represent in
litigation anyone other than himself or herself. See
Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998);
Johns v. Cty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th
Petitioner is a minor, which is unclear in light of the
allegation he was enrolled in high school in 2015, his
non-lawyer mother may not litigate on Petitioner's
behalf. See L.R. 83-2.10.2 (“A non-attorney
guardian for a minor or an incompetent person must be
represented by counsel.”); Bullock v.
Dioguardi, 847 F.Supp. 553, 560 (N.D. Ill. 1993)
(“Although a parent has a right to litigate claims on
h[er] own behalf without an attorney, [s]he cannot litigate
the claims of h[er] children unless [s]he obtains
counsel.”), accord Osei-Afriyie by Osei-Afriyie v.
Med. Coll. of Pennsylvania, 937 F.2d 876, 882-83 (3d
Cir. 1991); Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found. of Buffalo,
Inc., 906 F.2d 59, 61 (2d Cir. 1990); Meeker v.
Kercher, 782 F.2d 153, 154 (10th Cir. 1986).
PETITION IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
habeas petition “is expected to state facts that point
to a real possibility of constitutional error.”
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 76 n.7, 97 S.Ct.
1621, 1630, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (U.S. 1977) (citation omitted).
Failing to do so, the Petition is subject to dismissal.
Id; seeJones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d
199, 204-05 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1143
(1996) (holding conclusory allegations unsupported by a
statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief);
Mihailoviki v. State of Cal., 364 F.2d 808, 809 (9th
Cir. 1966) (affirming dismissal of petition with, inter alia,
contained unintelligible and conclusory allegations);
Hines v. Napolitano, No. CIV. 071816-WQH (RBB), 2007
WL 2859745, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2007) (dismissing
petition which contained “unintelligible allegations
without any specific federal constitutional grounds for
relief; court need not “engage in a tenuous analysis in
order to attempt to identify and ma[k]e sense of the
Petition”); see also Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 29, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d
340 (1992) ...