Allah v. Strange

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: October 28, 2021
• Docket: 4:21-cv-05124
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Oct 28, 2021 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 ALLAH©, SP/c, 5% Nation of Islam, 10 No. 4:21-CV-05124-SAB Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER TO PROCEED IN 12 FORMA PAUPERIS AND 13 CHERYL STRANGE, d/b/a Secretary of ORDER SUMMARILY 14 DOC, and DONALD R. HOLBROOK, DISMISSING PETITION d/b/a Supervisor of WSP, 15 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 On September 9, 2021, Petitioner, a prisoner at the Washington State 20 Penitentiary filed a pro se document titled, “‘Emergency’ Petition for a Writ of 21 Habeas Corpus, DOC is Holding Allah© with Bogus Judgments That are Not 22 Signed and No Warrant of Commitments Filed in the Record Violating UCC/RCW 23 62A.3-401 Signature, RCW 9.35.020(1) Identity Theft, RCW 9A.56.020(1) Theft, 24 Court(s) can show no Conviction,” without a completed application to proceed in 25 forma pauperis or payment of the $5.00 filing fee. ECF No. 1. On September 16, 26 2021, Petitioner sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3. 27 // 28 // 1 Because it appears that Petitioner lacks sufficient funds to prosecute this 2 action, his request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and this action may 3 proceed without payment of the filing fee. 4 Petitioner contends that Respondents are holding him with “bogus 5 Judgments” and have “no Warrant of Commitments in their Central File.” ECF No. 6 1 at 1. He also claims they have “stolen” two EIP checks, by which the Court 7 assumes he means Economic Impact Payment, as part of the Coronavirus Aid, 8 Relief, and Economic Securities Act (“CARES Act”). In addition, he claims that 9 for twenty years, they have taken money sent to Allah© in the bogus name of 10 Allah Allah, using “void” King County documents naming Edwin R. Coston. 11 If Petitioner wishes to challenge the conditions under which he is confined, 12 then he will need to file a separate civil rights action. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 13 573, 574 (9th Cir.1991) (civil rights action is proper method of challenging 14 conditions of confinement); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 92 & n. 1 (9th 15 Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition on basis that challenges to 16 conditions of confinement must be brought in civil rights complaint). 17 Petitioner also challenges a Franklin County Judgment and Sentence, Case 18 No. 12-1-50324-8, because it is unsigned and not fingerprinted. Petitioner states 19 that he received a letter from the Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, Chief 20 Civil Deputy, dated August 18, 2021, stating: “Also we do not have a signed and 21 fingerprinted Judgment and Sentence since you refused that part of the process at 22 the time the plea was entered.” ECF No. 1 at 2, 5. This is the fourteenth habeas 23 action Petitioner has filed in this District since 2010. 24 Petitioner began challenging Franklin County Case No. 12-1-50324-8 in 25 2012. See Allah v. Long, No. 2:12-CV-00549-RMP (Jan. 30, 2013) (Challenge to 26 Franklin County Superior Court case number 12-1-50324-8 dismissed without 27 prejudice for failure to exhaust); Allah v. McGrath, No. 2:13-CV-00355-JTR (Dec. 28 16, 2013) (Dismissed pursuant to Rule 3(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 1 in the United States District Courts, and 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) for failure to pay 2 applicable filing fee or provide a completed in forma pauperis application); Allah 3 v. Holbrook, No. 4:15-CV-05100-SAB (Feb. 24, 2016) (Dismissed without 4 prejudice for failure to present a statement showing an entitlement to relief or that 5 claims had been exhausted); Allah v. Holbrook, No. 4:16-CV-05045-SAB (Sept. 1, 6 2016) (Dismissed without prejudice for failing to state any cognizable grounds for 7 federal habeas relief regarding Judgment and Sentence in Franklin County cause 8 number 12-1-50324-8, and rejecting Petitioner’s contentions regarding the name(s) 9 under which he is being detained as not warranting federal habeas relief); Allah v. 10 Holbrook, No. 4:19-CV-05208-SAB (Nov. 21, 2019) (denying with prejudice 11 Petitioner’s repeated arguments regarding the name(s) under which he is being 12 detained and his untenable challenges to his federal criminal conviction); Allah v. 13 Haggerty, et al., No. 4:19-CV-05279-SAB (Dismissed pursuant to Rule 3(a), Rules 14 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1914(a) for failure to pay applicable filing fee or provide a completed in forma 16 pauperis application); Allah v. Holbrook, No. 4:20-CV-5018-SAB (May 11, 2020) 17 (Summarily Dismissing Habeas Action with prejudice, declining to entertain 18 Petitioner’s arguments regarding the names(s) under which he is being detained); 19 Allah v. Holbrook, No. 4:20-CV-5084-SAB (July 14, 2020) (Summarily 20 Dismissing Habeas Action with prejudice, declining to entertain Petitioner’s 21 arguments regarding the names(s) under which he is being detained) (Ninth Circuit 22 denied Certificate of Appealability on February 9, 2021, No. 20-35646). 23 Petitioner’s repeated assertions regarding the name(s) under which he is 24 detained do not warrant federal habeas relief, and his contentions regarding his 25 Franklin County conviction in case No. 12-1-50324-8 have been previously 26 rejected by the Court. See Allah v. Holbrook, No. 4:16-CV-05045-SAB. The Court 27 declines to entertain Petitioner’s arguments further. 28 // 1 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED the Petition, ECF No. 1, is DENIED with prejudice. 3 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 5|| 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). 8 DATED this 28th day of October 2021. 9 10 11 ‘ 2 Souler Eee Yoar 13 Stanley A. Bastian 14 Chief United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND ORDER CTIMIMIA RIT V NICNITCCING DETITION *« 4