Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00732/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00732-1/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PARRISH BRYANT GARVIN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

ROBERT A. HOREL, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-0732 AWI LJO HC 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On June 2, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. By order of the Court

dated June 12, 2006, the case was transferred to the Fresno Division and received in this Court.

This case was erroneously opened as a new case. On March 7, 2000, in Parrish Garvin v.

Kings County, CIV F 00 5140 AWI LJO P, the undersigned issued an order declaring Petitioner to be

a vexatious litigant. Pursuant to that order, the Court must screen all documents filed by Parrish

Garvin and return any document not meeting the specific criteria outlined in the order.

In this case, Petitioner’s filing is deficient because:

1) Petitioner did not include with the petition the filing fee or a completed application to

Case 1:06-cv-00732-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 06/27/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

proceed in forma pauperis, along with a certified copy of Petitioner’s prison trust account;

2) Petitioner did not prove that he has exhausted his state court remedies by having presented

the claims to the California Supreme Court in a procedurally proper form and proved that his

direct appeal concerning the conviction being challenged has been ruled on by the California

Court of Appeal; 

3) Petitioner did not include in the petition only claims that allege violations of the Federal

Constitution;

4) Petitioner did not include in the petition only claims that are the proper subject matter for a

habeas petition; and

5) The petition is largely illegible.

ORDER

Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to

enter judgment and terminate this action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00732-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 2