Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04319/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04319-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\HC.15\Olea319disftsc.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANIANO OLEA,

Petitioner,

 v.

WARDEN, 

Respondent. ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-4319 LHK (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. For the reasons that follow, the court

DISMISSES the petition.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show

cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the

applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is

Case 5:15-cv-04319-LHK Document 2 Filed 02/08/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\HC.15\Olea319disftsc.wpd 2

appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably

incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir.

1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)).

B. Petitioner’s Claims

Petitioner claims that he has been attempting to obtain the return of his property, which

was lawfully seized pursuant to a search warrant and then held by the district attorney’s office. 

Petitioner alleges that the failure of the California courts to return his property violates his

constitutional rights.

The power of a federal habeas court “lies to enforce the right of personal liberty.” Fay v.

Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 430 (1963), overruled on other grounds by Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S.

72, 87 (1977). As such, a habeas court only has the power to release a prisoner. It has “no other

power.” Fay, 372 U.S. at 431. Here, the petition does not attempt to challenge either the

petitioner’s conviction or the length of his sentence. Success in this action would not result in

his release or any change in his sentence. Accordingly, habeas jurisdiction is absent, and this

petition must be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk shall

terminate all pending motions and close the file.

The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district

court that denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in its

ruling. See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Petitioner has

not shown that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim

of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether

the district court was correct in its procedural [rulings].” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Accordingly, a COA is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: LUCY H. KOH

 United States District Judge

2/5/2016

Case 5:15-cv-04319-LHK Document 2 Filed 02/08/16 Page 2 of 2