(HC) Selck v. County of Sacramento ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MORREY SELCK, No. 2:21-CV-1499-TLN-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court are Respondent’s motion to 19 dismiss, ECF No. 17, Petitioner’s opposition to the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 20, Respondent’s 20 reply to the opposition, ECF No. 21, and Petitioner’s amendment to opposition to Respondent’s 21 motion to dismiss, ECF No. 23. Respondent argues the action must be dismissed for failure to 22 comply with provisions of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 23 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 Petitioner initiated this action with a habeas petition challenging his five-year 26 probation sentence for burglary. See EFC No. 1, pg. 1. Petitioner amended the petition on 27 October 5, 2021, to allege additional facts relevant to case numbers 17FE002343 and 17FE06221. 28 See EFC No. 7. The substance of the first amended petition is a list of various abuses committed 1 against Petitioner by the “county court officers,” Volunteers of America, and witnesses that 2 testified against Petitioner. See id. These allegations include a conspiracy to prolong Petitioner’s 3 probation and incur fines against Petitioner to steal Petitioner’s home and property “thru real 4 estate conversion and manipulation of time and Petitioner’s service benefits,” thus “keeping 5 [Petitioner] homeless and without means to work,” submitting false evidence, poisoning 6 Petitioner’s mother with psychiatric medication leading to sepsis, cancer, and death, and 7 assaulting Petitioner (which Petitioner alleges is captured on a traffic light camera.) Id. at 5-8. 8 Petitioner also states his burglary conviction is invalid because the antique rosewood chairs, golf 9 clubs, and “Craftsman tools” that were burglarized belonged to Petitioner before they were stolen 10 during his 2006 military deployment. Id. at 5. Petitioner also claims that state officials coerced 11 Petitioner into being homeless upon release. Id. at 8. 12 Regarding case number 17FE06221, Petitioner alleges that law enforcement 13 submitted false evidence of a stolen pistol on Petitioner’s property, and that Petitioner’s victims 14 were gang members, drug dealers, had “pointed a shotgun at his family,” and were in conflict 15 with rival gang members. Id. Petitioner also contends that his victim was a sex trafficker, 16 producer of pornographic child films, sells drugs, is “known to kill white men,” and was 17 associated with a Volunteers of America member who defrauded veteran’s benefits from 18 Petitioner, his mother, and his mother’s estate. Id. 19 Regarding case number 17FE002343, Petitioner contends that the court wrongly 20 denied Petitioner counsel because “the DA had judge relieve privately attained attorney for trial” 21 and therefore Petitioner was forced to revoke his non-guilty plea because he was denied counsel. 22 Id. Petitioner alleges facts questioning victim credibility, alleging they are “ex-felons with severe 23 drug charges and active gang associations,” “employed a teenager to sell drugs on school 24 premises,” “stole plaintiff’s father’s locksmith set and licensed accounts to burglarize homes,” 25 “approaching plaintiff’s family with guns,” and “had large eight-ball looking bags of black tar 26 heroin for sale.” Id. at 4. Petitioner also alleges he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine 27 the illegitimate witnesses in trial. See id. at 2-3. 28 / / / 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 In its motion to dismiss, Respondent argues that Petitioner’s first amended petition 3 must be dismissed for failure to comply with Rules 2(c) and 2(e) of the Federal Rules Governing 4 Section 2254 Cases. See ECF No. 17. For the reasons discussed below, the Court agrees. 5 A. Rule 2(c) 6 Allegations which are unsupported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant 7 federal habeas relief. James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994). Moreover, “[f]ederal courts 8 are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its 9 face.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). Thus, in order to satisfy Rule 2(c), facts 10 must be stated, in the petition, with sufficient detail to enable the Court to determine, from the 11 face of the petition, whether further habeas corpus review is warranted.” Frasier v. Hernandez, 12 2007 WL 1300063, *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2007). 13 Here, the Court agrees with Respondent that the first amended petition fails to 14 comply with Rule 2(c). Specifically, it is largely incoherent, references more than one state court 15 conviction, and does not state any request for relief. 16 B. Rule 2(e) 17 Rule 2(e) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases permits a petition to 18 only challenge a single judgment. Under Rule 2(e), petitioners seeking relief from judgments of 19 more than one state court must file a separate petition covering the judgment or judgments of 20 each court. See Dickey v. Davis, 231 F. Supp. 3d 634, 728 (E.D. Cal. 2017). As discussed 21 above, the first amended petition challenges more than one state court conviction. As such, it 22 must be dismissed with leave to amend to challenge a single conviction in this case and without 23 prejudice to challenging any other convictions in separate new petitions. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 I. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Respondent’s motion to 3 | dismiss, ECF No. 17, be granted and that Petitioner be directed to file a second amended petition. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 5 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 6 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 7 | objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 8 | objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 9 | Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991), 10 11 | Dated: July 7, 2022 Ssvcqo_ DENNIS M. COTA 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 2:21-cv-01499

Filed Date: 7/7/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/20/2024