Clinton Alford v. Federal Judges

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-05119-DMG-MAR Document 7 Filed 12/15/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:25

1 2

4 5 6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 11 CLINTON ALFORD, Case No. CV 22-05119-DMG (MAR) 12 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 13 v. DISMISSING THE ACTION 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 I. 20 On June 29, 2022, Petitioner Clinton Alford (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, 21 constructively filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in 22 State Custody (“Petition”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. The 23 Court has screened the Petition pursuant to Habeas Rule 4. This preliminary review 24 revealed defects in the Petition that warrant dismissal. For the reasons set forth 25 below, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 26 27 28 Case 2:22-cv-05119-DMG-MAR Document 7 Filed 12/15/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:26

1 II. 3 Petitioner describes his claim as follows: Federal judges awarded Petitioner Clinton Denel Alford Jr. $800 4 Million Dollars in Case # 19-0-26817, but Petitioner’s attorney Caree 5 Harper, Kristen Jones, State Bar Investigators Sherell Mcfarlane, Investigator Cole Dillon…stole “theft” $800 Million that federal judges in 6 case # 19-0-26817 awarded to [Petitioner] but attorney stole “theft” $800 7 million, to have a[n] [arbitration] hearing on compensation for $800 million today 6:29-22 8 9 Dkt. 1 at 3. 10 Petitioner appears to reference a federal civil case where he obtained a 11 monetary settlement based on a false arrest. Id. at 2. Petitioner also appears to 12 indicate that he either has been, or was about to be, released from custody, though it 13 is unclear whether he was in state or federal custody. Id. at 1 (responding to the 14 question, “When do you expect to be released?” with “Today per settlement 15 conference”). He directs this Court to reference “Case No. 19-026827” throughout 16 his Petition. Id. at 3. Despite a diligent search, the Court could not locate this case. 17 On August 3, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why this Action 18 Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim (“OSC”). Dkt. 4. On August 19 22, 2022, Petitioner filed a response. Dkt. 6. Plaintiff’s restates his claim but does not 20 correct or explain any of the deficiencies identified in the Court’s OSC. Id. 23 The Court may dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the 24 petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the 25 district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Rule 1(b), Rules 26 Governing Section 2254 Cases (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules 27 to a habeas corpus petition not [under section 2254]”). 28 /// 2 Case 2:22-cv-05119-DMG-MAR Document 7 Filed 12/15/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:27

1 IV. 5 Federal habeas corpus relief is available only when a petitioner has been 6 convicted or sentenced in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the 7 United States. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011). It is not available 8 for errors in the interpretation or application of state law. Id.; Estelle v. McGuire, 502 9 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991). Furthermore, the “in custody” requirement is jurisdictional, 10 and it is, therefore, the first question the Court must consider. Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 11 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010). 12 Here, Petitioner cites no constitutional right or federal law in explaining his 13 claim. The most obvious interpretation of Petitioner’s claim is that he seeks either a 14 previously awarded settlement or damages based on the commission of a state law 15 tort, such as false arrest or conversion. To the extent Petitioner brings a state law tort 16 claim, or seeks a judgment obtained in a state action, Petitioner’s claim is not 17 cognizable on federal habeas corpus review. Nelson v. California Dep’t of Corr. & 18 Rehab., No. 2:20-CV-05879-JVS (GJS), 2020 WL 8414030, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 19 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:20-CV-05879-JVS (GJS), 2021 WL 20 706760 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2021) (“State law tort matters do not serve as any basis for 21 federal habeas relief.” (citing Estelle, 502 U.S. at 68)). 22 Furthermore, Petitioner indicates that he either has been, or was about to be, 23 released from custody, and thus it is unclear whether Petitioner satisfies the custodial 24 jurisdiction requirement. 25 Ultimately, Petitioner’s claim is entirely unclear and the Court cannot discern 26 the basis for the claim or how it is cognizable on federal habeas review. 27 /// 28 /// 3 Case]2:22-cv-05119-DMG-MAR Document 7 Filed 12/15/22 Page 4of4 Page ID#:28

1 V. 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Petition is DISMISSED 4 without prejudice. > | DATED: December 15, 2022 C □□ 9 Dn f 6 DOLLY sEE 7 United States District Judge Presented by: 9 Bs □ 2 '0 | NIARGOA.ROCCONT. 11 United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28