Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00212/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00212-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL LEE MACIAS HUNT,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN S. SOMERS, et. al.

Respondents.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00212 MJS (HC)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

30 DAY DEADLINE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for writ of personal 

replevin. 

Petitioner filed the instant action on February 11, 2016. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) 

Petitioner seeks relief in the form of a writ of replevin, where Petitioner alleges that he, 

personally, is the collateral to his debts, and that he should be discharged and released 

from custody. As Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding pro se, the Court shall screen the 

petition. 

Case 1:16-cv-00212-DAD-MJS Document 6 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 4
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

2

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which 

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any 

cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . 

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S. 

Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state 

a claim a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation 

to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . 

. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative 

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 167 L. 

Ed. 2d 929 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a 

claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. Pro se pleadings must be 

liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

II. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff alleges that the Superior Court of Kern County imposed a criminal 

sentence on his person, when the actual defendant in the case was a fictitious corporate 

entity, and that Petitioner is only the secured property of defendant. Plaintiff seeks a "writ 

of replevin" restoring the collateral, in this case his person, thereby providing his release 

from prison. 

Although Petitioner contends that his action is based on the Uniform Commercial 

Code and other federal authority, the Court finds that he has not alleged any basis for 

Case 1:16-cv-00212-DAD-MJS Document 6 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 4
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

3

this Court's jurisdiction over this case. He does not assert any plausible violation of 

federal law, and his allegations do not raise a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In 

addition, as Defendant and Plaintiff are both located in California, there is no diversity 

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

Instead of invoking the remedy of habeas corpus, Petitioner purports to seek a 

writ of "personal replevin," which in substance is the same thing. Personal replevin has 

been largely superseded by the writ of habeas corpus as a means of investigating the 

legality of an imprisonment." Black's Law Dictionary 1302 (7th ed. 1999). No reported 

federal case known to the Court in the last century has entertained the merits of any 

such petition for personal replevin. To the extent he seeks release from custody, 

Petitioner must do so in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus after he has exhausted his 

claims in the California Supreme Court. See Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 131 S. Ct. 

1289, 1293, 179 L. Ed. 2d 233 (2011) (habeas is the "exclusive remedy" for the prisoner 

who seeks "immediate or speedier release" from confinement). 

Accordingly, Petitioner may resubmit his petition as one for a writ of habeas 

corpus. If he chooses to do so, he must do so within 30 days of the filing date of this 

order and must employ this District's required form, which will be provided with this 

order.891403

Otherwise, to the extent Plaintiff believes that a fine or lien issued by the court of 

conviction violate state law, he may bring an action in state court. Plaintiff should also be 

aware that while he may challenge his custody in a federal habeas petition, he may not 

challenge the imposition of a fine. See Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2010).

III. ORDER

 It is ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this 

order to submit an amended petition. The amended petition should be clearly and boldly 

titled “AMENDED PETITION,” contain the appropriate case number, and be an original 

signed under penalty of perjury; 

Case 1:16-cv-00212-DAD-MJS Document 6 Filed 03/01/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition 

for petitioners filing petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and,

3. Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result 

in a Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00212-DAD-MJS Document 6 Filed 03/01/16 Page 4 of 4