Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04651/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04651-5/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 09-4651 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 4/23/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

TAHEE ABD RASHEED,

Petitioner,

v.

KELLY HARRINGTON, Warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 09-4651 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

This is a federal habeas corpus action filed by a pro se state prisoner pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. His amended petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

BACKGROUND

In 1999, petitioner was convicted of grand theft property and burglary in the San

Mateo County Superior Court, and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of twenty-five

years to life in state prison. In the instant action, petitioner challenges that conviction. 

This Court may entertain a petition for 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

Case 3:09-cv-04651-RS Document 36 Filed 04/23/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Petitioner incorrectly labels this filing as a complaint. 

No. C 09-4651 RS (PR)

2 ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

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

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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 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). 

The Court dismissed the original petition with leave to amend, petitioner having failed

to state sufficient facts to show that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated, and that he

has exhausted his state judicial remedies. (See Docket No. 26.) Petitioner has filed an

amended petition1

 (Docket Nos. 29 & 31), yet he has failed to correct the deficiencies, and

has alleged new claims unrelated to his conviction. In the amended petition, for example,

petitioner challenges a state statute that allows state officials to classify petitioner as mentally

ill, and detain him based on that classification. In the amended petition, petitioner mentions

nothing whatever about his previous claims. 

Petitioner having failed to comply with the Court’s instructions, the action is

DISMISSED without prejudice to petitioner filing an amended petition correcting the

deficiencies of the initial petition. If petitioner wishes to seek relief on the claims put forth in

his amended petition, he must file a new and separate action.

The action having been dismissed, petitioner’s pending motions to amend (Docket No.

27), for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 34), and asking the Court to order a mental

and physical examination (Docket No. 35) are DENIED. 

//

//

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-04651-RS Document 36 Filed 04/23/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 09-4651 RS (PR)

3 ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 27, 34 & 35. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 22, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04651-RS Document 36 Filed 04/23/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 09-4651 RS (PR)

4 ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:

Tahee Abd Rasheed 

J-74120 

aka J. E. Smith 

B5-115L-CSP-S 

Post Office Box 29-0066 

Represa, CA 95671-0066 

DATED: 04/23/2010 

 

 

s/ Chambers Staff 

Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

* Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to any co-counsel who

have not registered with the Court's electronic filing system.

Case 3:09-cv-04651-RS Document 36 Filed 04/23/10 Page 4 of 4