Allah v. Strange

Opinion

FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Oct 28, 2021 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK ALLAH©, SP/c, 5% Nation of Islam, No. 4:21-CV-05124-SAB Petitioner, v. ORDER TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND CHERYL STRANGE, d/b/a Secretary of ORDER SUMMARILY DOC, and DONALD R. HOLBROOK, DISMISSING PETITION d/b/a Supervisor of WSP, Respondents. On September 9, 2021, Petitioner, a prisoner at the Washington State Penitentiary filed a pro se document titled, “‘Emergency’ Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, DOC is Holding Allah© with Bogus Judgments That are Not Signed and No Warrant of Commitments Filed in the Record Violating UCC/RCW 62A.3-401 Signature, RCW 9.35.020(1) Identity Theft, RCW 9A.56.020(1) Theft, Court(s) can show no Conviction,” without a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis or payment of the $5.00 filing fee. ECF No. 1. On September 16, 2021, Petitioner sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3. // // Because it appears that Petitioner lacks sufficient funds to prosecute this action, his request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and this action may proceed without payment of the filing fee. Petitioner contends that Respondents are holding him with “bogus Judgments” and have “no Warrant of Commitments in their Central File.” ECF No. 1 at 1. He also claims they have “stolen” two EIP checks, by which the Court assumes he means Economic Impact Payment, as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Securities Act (“CARES Act”). In addition, he claims that for twenty years, they have taken money sent to Allah© in the bogus name of Allah Allah, using “void” King County documents naming Edwin R. Coston. If Petitioner wishes to challenge the conditions under which he is confined, then he will need to file a separate civil rights action. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.1991) (civil rights action is proper method of challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 92 & n. 1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition on basis that challenges to conditions of confinement must be brought in civil rights complaint). Petitioner also challenges a Franklin County Judgment and Sentence, Case No. 12-1-50324-8, because it is unsigned and not fingerprinted. Petitioner states that he received a letter from the Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, Chief Civil Deputy, dated August 18, 2021, stating: “Also we do not have a signed and fingerprinted Judgment and Sentence since you refused that part of the process at the time the plea was entered.” ECF No. 1 at 2, 5. This is the fourteenth habeas action Petitioner has filed in this District since 2010. Petitioner began challenging Franklin County Case No. 12-1-50324-8 in 2012. See Allah v. Long, No. 2:12-CV-00549-RMP (Jan. 30, 2013) (Challenge to Franklin County Superior Court case number 12-1-50324-8 dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust); Allah v. McGrath, No. 2:13-CV-00355-JTR (Dec. 16, 2013) (Dismissed pursuant to Rule 3(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) for failure to pay applicable filing fee or provide a completed in forma pauperis application); Allah v. Holbrook, No. 4:15-CV-05100-SAB (Feb. 24, 2016) (Dismissed without prejudice for failure to present a statement showing an entitlement to relief or that claims had been exhausted); Allah v. Holbrook, No. 4:16-CV-05045-SAB (Sept. 1, 2016) (Dismissed without prejudice for failing to state any cognizable grounds for federal habeas relief regarding Judgment and Sentence in Franklin County cause number 12-1-50324-8, and rejecting Petitioner’s contentions regarding the name(s) under which he is being detained as not warranting federal habeas relief); Allah v. Holbrook, No. 4:19-CV-05208-SAB (Nov. 21, 2019) (denying with prejudice Petitioner’s repeated arguments regarding the name(s) under which he is being detained and his untenable challenges to his federal criminal conviction); Allah v. Haggerty, et al., No. 4:19-CV-05279-SAB (Dismissed pursuant to Rule 3(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) for failure to pay applicable filing fee or provide a completed in forma pauperis application); Allah v. Holbrook, No. 4:20-CV-5018-SAB (May 11, 2020) (Summarily Dismissing Habeas Action with prejudice, declining to entertain Petitioner’s arguments regarding the names(s) under which he is being detained); Allah v. Holbrook, No. 4:20-CV-5084-SAB (July 14, 2020) (Summarily Dismissing Habeas Action with prejudice, declining to entertain Petitioner’s arguments regarding the names(s) under which he is being detained) (Ninth Circuit denied Certificate of Appealability on February 9, 2021, No. 20-35646). Petitioner’s repeated assertions regarding the name(s) under which he is detained do not warrant federal habeas relief, and his contentions regarding his Franklin County conviction in case No. 12-1-50324-8 have been previously rejected by the Court. See Allah v. Holbrook, No. 4:16-CV-05045-SAB. The Court declines to entertain Petitioner’s arguments further. // Therefore, IT IS ORDERED the Petition, ECF No. 1, is DENIED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment, and forward a copy to Petitioner. The Clerk of Court shall close the file. The Court certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). DATED this 28th day of October 2021. ‘ Souler Eee Yoar Stanley A. Bastian Chief United States District Judge ORDER TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND ORDER CTIMIMIA RIT V NICNITCCING DETITION *« 4