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.

Abdul-Ali Bey ex rel Stevenson v. People

United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division

January 16, 2020

DHULKIFL ABDUL-ALI BEY ex rel. GEORGE JEROME STEVENSON; EZEKIEL GAMBA JUDAH, Petitioner,
v.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

         ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO NAME PETITIONER; FAILURE TO USE THE PROPER FORM; FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; FAILURE TO EXHAUST CLAIMS; FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE COURT OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

          HONORABLE OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. DISCUSSION

         A. BACKGROUND

         On December 19, 2019, a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Person Committed to State Hospital” (“Petition”) was filed in this action. The Petition's pleading caption states: “DhulkifI Abdul-Ali: Bey ex rel[.] GEORGE JEROME STEVENSON Ezekiel Gamba Judah” v. People of the State of California. (ECF No. 1 at 1). The body of the Petition alleges that petitioner -- who is not identified by name -- is confined at Patton State Hospital for mental health treatment pursuant to an order by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, even though petitioner has never “been a person with a mental health disorder and is not a danger to himself or to others, and is not gravely disabled.” (Id. at 1-2). The Petition seeks as relief an order from the Court directing the medical director of Patton State Hospital to release petitioner. (Id. at 2). Also on December 19, 2019, a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was filed in this matter, with the caption stating: “GEORGE JEROME STEVENSON Ezekiel Gamba Judah” v. People of the State of California. (ECF No. 2 at 1). This second filing, which the Court refers to as the “Supplemental Petition, ” alleges that habeas relief is sought for “Pretrial Detainee Dhulkifi Abdul-Ali: Bey ex rel[.] GEORGE JEROME STEVENSON, Ezekiel Gamba Judah: PETITIONER[.]” (Id.).

         On December 27, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend (ECF No. 5) noting the following deficiencies: the proper Central District form was not used for the Petition and Supplemental Petition (collectively “Petitions”); it is not clear from the Petitions “exactly what, or how many, grounds for relief petitioner presents or if he has exhausted any claims”; the Petitions did not contain a signed statement certifying under penalty of perjury that the information contained in the Petitions is true and correct; the identity of the petitioner is not clear in either document; and, it is not clear whether a third party is in fact pursuing habeas relief on petitioner's behalf as a “next friend.” (Id.). Petitioner was advised that if he has a representative who seeks to proceed on his behalf in this action as a next friend, the representative must file a motion requesting next friend status no later than January 15, 2020. (Id.). In the alternative, petitioner was ordered to file, no later than January 24, 2020, an Amended Petition on the proper form, containing all of the required information. (Id. at 6). Petitioner was further advised that if nothing had been filed by January 24, 2020, “dismissal of the instant Petition[s] will be recommended for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with this Order and governing case law.” (Id. (emphasis in original)).

         On January 13, 2020, the Magistrate Judge's Order Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend, sent by the Court to petitioner at his address of record, was returned with the notations “Unable to Forward, ” and “Released . . . 12/30.”

         B. REASONS TO DISMISS THIS ACTION CITED IN THE JANUARY 13, 2020, ORDER

         The Court has reviewed the Petitions as well as the Magistrate Judge's December 27, 2019, “Order Dismissing Petition[s] with Leave to Amend” and determines that the reasons cited by the Magistrate Judge for dismissing the Petitions were valid. Moreover, because the December 27, 2019, Order was returned as undeliverable, it is irrelevant that the deadlines set by the Magistrate Judge have not yet expired.

         Based on the foregoing, this Court determines that dismissal of the action without prejudice is now warranted. Indeed, after reviewing the Petitions, this Court is also unable to discern from the unintelligible and confusing assertions, what claims, if any, petitioner is presenting in the Petitions. (Id. at 1-2). Not only is the name of the actual petitioner unclear in both documents, the action is subject to dismissal for failure to use the proper Central District form; failure to state a claim for federal habeas relief; failure to sign the Petitions under penalty of perjury; failure to prosecute; and, to the extent the Petition is being brought by a third party on petitioner's behalf, for failure to seek “next friend” status. And, because petitioner is no longer at his address of record, there is no sense in attempting to impose a sanction other than dismissal. (See Discussion, Part D).

         C. FAILURE TO INFORM THE COURT OF ADDRESS CHANGE

         Petitioner's failure to inform the Court of his current address in and of itself warrants dismissal. Local Rule 41-6 states:

A party proceeding pro se shall keep the Court and opposing parties apprised of such party's current address and telephone number, if any, and e-mail address, if any. If mail directed by the Clerk to a pro se plaintiff's address of record is returned undelivered by the Postal Service, and if, within fifteen (15) days of the service date, such plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the Court and opposing parties of said plaintiff's current address, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution.

         More than 15 days have passed since the service date the of Magistrate Judge's December 27, 2019, Order. Plaintiff has not apprised the Court of a new address, and in fact has not had any contact with the Court since December 19, 2019, when he filed his case initiating documents. (ECF Nos. 1, 2). ...


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.