Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Ada v. Federal Board of Investigations

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 14, 2017

Jim Ryan P. Ada
v.
Federal Board of Investigations

          PRESENT: THE HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

         Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be Dismissed

         I.

         INTRODUCTION

         On July 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.

         Accordingly, 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.

         II.

         DISCUSSION

         A. PETITION IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL BECAUSE IT IS NOT SIGNED BY PETITIONER

         Petitioner 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).

         Petitioner's 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 Cir. 1997).

         Even if 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).

         B. PETITION IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

         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) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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