United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
D. Spaeth, United States Magistrate Judge.
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. For the reasons discussed
below, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice.
RELEVANT PRIOR HISTORY
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
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
[Dkt. No. 11, pp. 5-6].
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.
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.
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. ...