Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00211/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00211-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY T. DARDEN, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

D. K. SISTO, et al, 

Respondents. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0211 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville,

California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

2254. The petition is completely unintelligible and does not assert a basis for either

jurisdiction in this venue or a legitimate habeas corpus claim. Therefore, Plaintiff’s

petition is DISMISSED. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court can obtain a

federal writ of habeas corpus 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). In other

words, a writ of habeas corpus is available under § 2254(a) "only on the basis of some

transgression of federal law binding on the state courts." Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d

1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982)), cert.

denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the

allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently

Case 3:07-cv-00211-JSW Document 4 Filed 01/31/07 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 2

frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

In this case, Petitioner’s allegations appear to allege some type of “involuntary

bankruptcy” and are completely incomprehensible and possibly delusional. The

petition fails to set forth any comprehensible allegations from which the Court can

discern a legitimate legal basis for a habeas corpus petition. For example, in the

section of the form petition that asks Petitioner to include grounds for relief, Petitioner

has listed as Claim One: 

Petitioner having multi-Petitions for Redress of Grievance issued to

agents of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, exhaust State remedies, and

STATE AGENTS dishonors, defaults, and Failure to deny Averments,

does admit by Tacit Procuration and Stare Decisis of distinction of

Stramineus Homo DEBTOR and the flesh and blood Secured Party.

Similarly, Claim Two states that “[s]tate Agents has claim[ed] Petitioner/Secured Party

exemptions into a secret budget by placing an TIN and NAME on an account in

deflicit [sic] using Petitioner for “Sureties” via Bid, Prison and Penal Bonds;. . ..”

A claim is frivolous if it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or

is clearly lacking any factual basis. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 

A claim that is totally incomprehensible may be dismissed as frivolous as it is without

an arguable basis in law. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Because the Court is unable to ascertain a cognizable federal claim from Plaintiff’s

incomprehensible complaint, it is dismissed as frivolous.

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED for the

reasons set forth above. The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 31, 2007 JEFFREY S. WHITE

 United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00211-JSW Document 4 Filed 01/31/07 Page 2 of 2