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.

Quair v. CSP-CDCR-Director of Corrections

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 11, 2019

DAVID SABINO QUAIR, III, Petitioner,
v.
CSP-CDCR-DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents.

          ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

          Autumn D. Spaeth, United States Magistrate Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On December 23, 2018, Petitioner David Sabino Quair, III, a California state prisoner, constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. No. 1]. On January 23, 2019, the Court received Petitioner's First Amended Petition. [Dkt. No. 11]. A review of the pleadings and records in this case reveals that Petitioner fails to allege a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief.[1] For the reasons discussed below, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice.

         II. RELEVANT PRIOR HISTORY

         On April 6, 2018, Petitioner pled nolo contendere to resisting an executive officer in violation of California Penal Code Section 69 and was sentenced to 32 months in custody. [Dkt. No. 4, pp. 42, 56-57]. On December 23, 2018, Petitioner constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court using the Northern District of California's federal habeas petition form. [Dkt. No. 1]. Although far from the model of clarity, the Petition raises several claims challenging various aspects of Petitioner's conditions of confinement. [Id.]. On January 23, 2019, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition (“FAP”) using the federal habeas petition form required by the Central District of California. [Dkt. No. 11]. In the FAP, Petitioner sets forth five grounds for relief, as follows:

1. “Unauthorized use of personal identifying information, mail theft - Calif. Penal Code 530.5;”
2. “Obstruction of mails generally Title 18 U.S.C.S. § 1701 . . . order of denial without discovery received;”
3. “Interlocutory appeals abuse by CSP- San Quentin, CSP-Calif. Inst. for Men, et seq.;”
4. “Failure to protect from harm by CSP-San Quentin and CSP-California Inst. for Men . . . two inmate appeals with CSP-California Institution for Men that are being neglected by the administration to date;” and
5. “Medical malpractice/medical negligence/ADA violations erroneous.”

[Dkt. No. 11, pp. 5-6].

         Petitioner further alleges “All petitions at every level of judiciary relief are obstructed and manipulated by CDCR and numerous others.” [Id., p. 7]. In addition to the two federal habeas petitions filed in this case, Petitioner has filed with the Court several volumes of “evidence” and “exhibits.” [Dkt. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 10, 1415, 16]. These filings appear to be a miscellaneous collection of Petitioner's underlying state court records, previously-filed state habeas petitions, medical records, and correspondence. Petitioner fails to provide context or explanation for the documents and they are not incorporated by reference in either of the federal habeas petitions filed by Petitioner in this case.

         In addition to the instant action, Petitioner has filed three other federal habeas petitions and nineteen federal civil rights actions in this Court. See Nos. 19-0650 PSG (ADS); 19-0878 PSG (ADS); 19-1188 PSG (ADS); 18-2595 PSG (ADS); 19-0022 PSG (ADS); 19-0085 PSG (ADS); 19-0087 PSG (ADS); 19-0093 PSG (ADS); 19-0454 PSG (ADS); 19-0587 PSG (ADS); 19-0607 PSG (ADS); 19-0699 PSG (ADS); 19-0750 PSG (ADS); 19-0768 PSG (ADS); 19-0769 PSG (ADS); 19-0774 PSG (ADS); 19-0776 PSG (ADS); 19-0782 PSG (ADS); 19-0783 PSG (ADS); 19-0786 PSG (ADS); 19-0791 PSG (ADS); 19-1149 PSG (ADS). Furthermore, a search on PACER reveals that Petitioner has multiple federal actions pending in other Districts Courts in California. See PACER, www.pacer.gov.

         The assigned Magistrate Judge issued an Order Summarily Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on July 3, 2019. [Dkt. No. 17]. Upon further consideration, the assigned Magistrate Judge sua sponte issued an order vacating the summary dismissal and judgment pursuant to Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. ...


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.