David Bennett v. Jeff Reisig, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02103
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID BENNETT, No. 2:25-CV-2103-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 JEFF REISIG, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 David Bennett, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s original 19 petition, ECF No. 1. 20 As a pretrial detainee, petitioner is not in custody “pursuant to the judgment of a 21 state court” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and instead brings the habeas petition under 22 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). See McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2003). In 23 screening the habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the court applies the Rule 4 24 framework of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. See 25 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rule 4; see also Id., Rule 1(b) (“The district court may apply any or all of 26 these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by Rule 1(a).”). 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Here, the petition does not contain a statement of facts to allow the Court to 2 determine whether he has stated a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief in violation of Rule 3 2(c) (1)-(3), which requires that the petition “(1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the 4 petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each ground; (3) state the relief requested . . . [(4) and (5) 5 omitted].” Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 2(c) 6 (1)-(3). 7 Petitioner asserts his Sixth Amendment Right to self-representation and right to 8 counsel is violated. See ECF No. 1, pg. 1. Petitioner asserts this violation is occurring

9 by way of death threats . . . causing bodily injury by omission. With law enforcement and prosecution intentionally eavesdropping with Everyday Death 10 Threats Desuading (sic) me as a Witness and Tampering with my lawsuit in federal court using Jailhouse Informants Emergency Button Cell Intercom, 11 Officers, Medical staff, security camera room . . . discussing private health information, criminal case, lawsuit, and grievance. Telling me to stop snitching 12 with Death Threats eavesdropping on attorney-client privilege communication. . .

13 Id. at 1-2. 14 Petitioner requests dismissal of “all criminal charges” and provides four case 15 numbers for criminal actions that name Petitioner as a Defendant.1 Id. at 2. Petitioner additionally 16 requests “for removal,” citing 18 U.S. Code § 1503, and “a hearing on District Attorney Jeff 17 Reisig and Tom Lopez failure to provide discovery.” Id. at 2-3. Petitioner contends that such 18 discovery includes audio recordings of the death threats Petitioner received and exculpatory 19 impeachment evidence for Petitioner’s self-defense claim. See id. at 3. Petitioner asserts a 20 violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, citing “coercion excessive force torture causing 21 everyday sleep deprivation . . .” Id. 22 The petition is unclear as to what Petitioner is detained for, which violations are 23 associated with that detention, and whether these allegations are suitable for a § 2241 petition. 24 Accordingly, Petitioner will be provided an opportunity to amend. Petitioner is cautioned that

25 1 This Court takes judicial notice of the Yolo County Superior Court Docket in case numbers CR2024-1951 (consolidated with CR2023-0488 on June 4, 2025) CR2023-0488 (trial 26 set for October 27, 2025), CR2023-1693 (charges dismissed April 26, 2024), and CR2021-2111 27 (docket states the matter is closed but there is also a jury trial set for October 27, 2025). Petitioner provided the numbers for these actions and the docket reflects that Petitioner is the Defendant 28 named in each of those cases. 1 | failure to file a second amended petition within the time permitted therefor may result in 2 || dismissal of the entire action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with Court rules and 3 | orders. See Local Rule 110. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Petitioner’s original petition, ECF No. 1, is dismissed with leave to 6 | amend; 7 2. Petitioner shall file a first amended petition on the form provided within 8 | 30 days of the date of this order; and 9 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward to Petitioner the court’s form 10 || petition for state prisoners. 1] 12 | Dated: October 14, 2025 Ss..c0_, 13 DENNIS M. COTA 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28